kevinjohnsonmbe

Definitely do that!!! ?

It wasn't so much a request for an explanation of TPM but rather an ironic reference to your use of the 'confirmation bias' phrase.... Maybe too subtle?

(1) At best, damned by faint praise; more likely (IMHO) set to become a lacky of the NFU and a champion for continuation of the recent historic exceptionally poor practice - not least of which, that which financially rewards corporate, 'charitable' and landowning interests to the direct detriment of the actual workers of the land and the environment. (2) Forgive me for forming the impression that you appear to have a tangible antagonism towards those with the temerity to speak out against current species / habitat loss and environmental exploitation in modern agriculture. Have I made an unfair assessment? Who are these 'infantilised urban ecomentalists' that you rail against? Name names, let's have a good look at them.... (3) '...cautiously optimistic...' has changed to "...nor do I support him because I know nothing about him...' and '...I'm not suggesting Eustice will be a good minister... I'll just leave that there... (4) See (1) & (3) (5) See (3) (6) See (3) (7) See (2) (8) Maybe some common ground there and that's why I viewed Gove (albeit an easily 'unlikable' type) as one of the best, briefly, in recent times.

Fundamentally, I’d suggest, it depends on whether one’s opinion is based upon the view that agriculture, and those responsible for it, are perceived as ‘custodians’ of the countryside or as the culprits of The industrial exploitation of it. There are, obviously and inevitably, degrees of interpretation and areas of middle ground. For my part, I certainly don’t have any optimism that Eustice will play the middle ground at a time when wholesale review and redirection of agriculture and countryside stewardship presents itself after Brexit. Next time you get that smack in the face, try asking yourself, Am I just casting my gaze upon that which I’ve become accustomed to seeing or should / could it actually be better if I opened my mind...

It was just a guess. No offence intended. I didn’t say you did. I certainly didn’t want you to. Don’t confuse confirmation bias with an objective opinion. The 2 are distinctly different. What was the theme park reference you used again? ?

Abuse does not preclude proper use Im just guessing here..... Like yourself? How utterly lame, boring and small minded is the oft trotted out mantra that “unless yome 8th generation farmer your opinion is worthless.” It’d be like suggesting the entire, combined brain power of academia is dwarfed by the superior, objective analysis and brilliance of window licker.... Not a naturally ‘likeable’ man, I was cautiously optimistic with Gove. Useless Eustace, as he’s affectionately known in his constituency, will be a puppet of the NFU and that has no foreseeable environmental advantage so far as I can see....

So it might ‘seem’ Egger.... Maybe ‘tis true, weme fooked! You know me, I’ll always try and find a positive if there’s one to be found. I’ll leave you with that and just float the question: Can you even begin to imagine how much worse it would have been under a Corbyn / Labour government.....

It's a stupid idea at the best of times.... But with the SNP wanting independence and the reunification of Ireland likely in the foreseeable future, it is just plain daft. On a separate note, Eustace taking on the Environment brief is like giving Gary Glitter & Jimmy Saville the keys to the kindergarten.....?

Storm Ciara: Mercedes driver killed by falling tree as Britain wakes up to fresh devastation WWW.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK A Mercedes driver has become the first victim of Storm Ciara when he was killed by a falling tree crashing onto his car roof. HSE to investigate the potential for all new cars to have 2 roofs in case of falling trees... ?

https://press.hse.gov.uk/2020/01/08/sole-trader-fined-after-worker-injured-2/

Accreditation is a time and money issue - isn’t everything! Fair play for the roll out of the small company option but until AA has a greater presence in the public domain it’s not for me.

Where perception is all important, this situation can hardly be regarded as the AA's finest hour. There may well be lots of hard work in the background but quietly working in the background is not what makes for strong representation in my book. From the beginning, 15 Aug 19, there was a fairly innocuous note at the AA's website - easily missed if you're busy: Arboricultural Association - Background to the HSE decision on two rope working WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A range of tree related help and advice for members of the public as well as tree surgeons. Then I started this thread to give it wider exposure, 1 Sep 19 which has run to 52 pages and 519 responses: Then Tom started this thread to try and generate a more technical perspective, 7 Sep 19 which has run to 49 pages and 486 responses: Plus there is a petition which runs to over 7k signatures: Petition · Single rope climbing for UK arborists · Change.org WWW.CHANGE.ORG Single rope climbing for UK arborists and a flurry of activity across Facebook with many and varied threads with much relevant feedback. Then Konstantly posted details of the WG meeting next Tuesday.... Certainly appears that "the people" have more to say about this than "the system" is able or willing to embrace.

Spot on!!! ??????

Part of the problem often stems from lazy staff cut & pasting previous ITT setting documents and blindly following tick sheets whilst having little or no real world experience of the actual task being scoped. This results in a tender scope which perpetuates previous poorly considered or inappropriate parameters, draws upon rules, regs, criteria which are from another industry sector (I've seen lots of construction industry specs in arb / landscaping ITT docs), outdated references, missing essential elements etc. Oftenwise, this may play to the advantage of the bidding contractor where the baseline price can be low and additions / deletions can be used to make up the margin but overall, the net result is a poor VfM output to the ultimate customer who is usually the tax payer. It has to be an exceptional opportunity to warrant the input effort AFAIC. Often more trouble than it's worth... Meh

Thanks Egger! Spotted the typo!!

If you had a known problem with damage caused by rodents and you had to contract in pest control services or bought traps, I’d see that as a genuine cost to protect assets. Cant see why a cat would differ. No chance of a cat being a pet - horrible, self absorbed, aloof feckers....

I know, last minute dot com AGAIN, despite promising myself every year that I will do it early..... ? Same firm but new account manager, same old questions that I've previously clarified and same justifications for queries raised: Guard dog expenses - are they eligible? (just shy of £800 for the year) They need to be 'wholly & exclusively' for business purposes. They are kennelled in the yard, they are integral elements of a layered, overt physical security system which includes warning signs, CCTV etc intended to deter and prevent isolated rural crime. They are working dogs with Schutzhund qual's. I claim for their expenses and accountant has questioned it. I have previously justified it to the last account manager but I have had to justify it again.... Any thoughts / comments / input appreciated. Subsistence - is it eligible? (just shy of £400 for the year) I have submitted (small) invoices for occasional pie / pasty etc when unexpectedly delayed or detained on a task. It happens. Extra fluids in Summer / hot drinks in Winter. I normally take too much food and end up bringing it home but sometimes a task or a site visit over runs and I get even more crabby than usual when hungry. Also, we've taken to having a Friday breakfast meeting (once or twice a month) with the architect(s)). I'd only claim for my own breakfast but it is a business meeting. Any thoughts / comments / input appreciated. There was also a question about protective clothing only being allowable if it was 'company branded.' I said under and mid layer clothing generally is but weather layer items would have waterproof qualities compromised by stitching.... Any thoughts / comments / input appreciated. I seem to be stuck in some sort of never ending loop where they are asking me if its appropriate and I am asking them if its legitimate. All I want is for them to say you can / cannot submit that. The expenses have been incurred, if they are legitimate I want them included if they are not I don't... I can feel a bit of a rage coming on ?

Alright china, I said only wear the cap if it fits ? You've answered the questions, I believe you....

Carry on like this and we’ll all be camped outside the factory - you won’t be able to get it/them out to the dealers ?

Where were you depositing your refuse? Did the mooring fee include an element for commercial waste? If so, fair do's. Same for your potable water and effluent. Where did that come from and go to? Were the folks in the areas yome were 'cruising' have to cover your expenses from their water rates and council tax? If no - fair play, no worries. If yes, you were a skin flint, tight wad, scrimshanking MF.... Please only wear the hat which best fits and take all of the above in the manner in which it was intended ??

No..... ???

I'm somewhat conflicted with this 'alternative' scenario... On the one hand, I'll cheer and support anyone that wants to 'do their own thing' and say bullocks to 'the system.' But on the other hand, and Cornwall is rife with it, it boils my urine that this so called alternative lifestyle very often relies heavily upon the very services which the more 'conventional' types have to pay for. If yome going off grid, off you jolly well trot and have a good time, best of luck to ya, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.... That means - if you want out of 'the system', it's all in or all out. If you're not paying council tax then that should mean no handouts, no social, no sneaking your rubbish next to somebody else's on bin day because that is simply exploiting others for your own benefit and it doesn't wash with me.