Haironyourchest

See if the council will put you on a MEWP and give you battery powered equipment? Or buy your own, and go self employed as Hight For Hire, doing house painting, gutters, roof repair, tall hedges, etc.

I thought so too! Of course, the Hollanders in Ireland are here trying to get away from Holland, so possibly atypical specimens. In fairness I've only run across a few sour ones, most are very honerable. ♥️ the Dutch, really, I do! ?

Oh dear - well that really is bad!

That said, my best mate is Dutch, and have also worked for loads of good'uns.

I can see that law applying to "Goods & Services" of a static and regular nature, like a shop, or a hairdresser. I think it would be incredibly hard to get a conviction on a roving tradesman though, where each job is different, and warrents a different quote. It's often said on here that if the job looks like a pain in the ass, just quote stupid high. Who's to say that refusing a job, or quoting high has a racist motive, in any given situation? I wonder if any such case has ever been brought and successfully prosecuted? Naturally, if one said to the prospective client "Sorry mate, I don't work for (whatevers)" then it's addmittance of guilt. Is refusing to quote based on address a crime as well? (Halting sites, rough estates?) If the recent political circus has taught us anything, it's that Law is whatever people with power want it to be, can convince others it is, and how they choose to interpret and apply it. My legal mind is intregued. Personally, all the times I've had issues it was always with the Dutch!

"For every lie told, a debt to the truth is incurred. Sooner or later that debt is paid". - Professor Guy from the HBO Chernobyl series.

Bloody natives, workin' so damn cheap they takin' our jobs ?

5 tonne tirfor and a stormy dark night.

Vertical splitter, preferably 8-9 tonne. Generic Chinese ones are ok.

Gladiators

Yes, but when you run out of their money, you simply compel them to work by force. You do need to keep your secret police well fed and watered though....

The metal wirey thing was digging through the pads and causing a hotspot on the side of my leg.

Yeah that's the one. It works for me but there are issues with it for sure.

I'm on a yoyo or RADS system, like the rope access guys use. I've done about 8 or so since the origional post, different species, not a bother to me now, but I take my time. Still don't do enough climbing to toughen up to wearing the gaffs though, most likely never will, so I'm severly limited in long I can stay aloft on them. But I've made some custom inserts that I think will make them more comfortable.

Paddy is sitting on a Ryanair 737 flight to Spain next to a Muslim man. The hostess stops with the drinks trolly and Paddy buys a mini whiskey. He askes his fellow traveler: "Would ya loik a drink?" The Muslim replies: "Alcohol? I'd rather be raped by seven whores than let that poison touch my lips!!" Paddy immediately hands the wee bottle back to the air hostess and tells her: "I've changed my mind - I'll have the same as him!"

(From Wikipedia).....Marx himself did not use the term socialism to refer to this development, but he rather called it a communist society that has not yet reached its higher-stage....[1] The age old problem of definition of terms, sigh...

China = Socialist = world's biggest polluter. Nordic countries: NOT SOCIALIST. They are free market capitalist countries with big nanny government. Not that same thing as socialism. Socialism is when the government owns everything. Look up the definition. Communism is socialism.

When you smell the stench of burning plastic...you know yr shrimp's ready!

Top class!

Well yes, so we are...?...Unless the whole thing turns out to be a hoax, engineered to separate us from our freedom and prosperity. Which looks more likely, day by day, from where I'm standing. The strategy is to scare people with the threat of their children's deaths, basically, to make them vote for and tolerate economically self destructive policy. But it doesn't work. Global cooling diddent happen in the seventies. Then Global Warming didn't happen in the 80's through early 00's. Then Climate Change didn't happen, in any impactful way, in the 10's. So now it's Climate Change+Species Loss+Pollution+Weather Crisis. But, in their efforts to generate hysteria, they beclown themselves and undermine their own stratagy by inviting ridicule. Greta Thunberg, I mean, honestly, how can you not laugh? Extinction Rebellion antics, etc. Not to mention sleazy movie stars spouting off as they jet around the globe.

I thought AGW was THE numero uno problem of our time though? That's what they're telling us. In terms of pollution, the west is doing much better than the east or developing countries. We have stopped poisoning our rivers, burning our rubbish etc. Plastic in landfills are not harmful to the planet, it's inert underground and doesn't go anywhere or do anything. Our expensive modern cars are actually less polluting than the scooters they all zoom around on in the rest of the world, in terms of particulates and local air quality. In terms of CO2 obviously our cars produce more of that, since they burn more fuel per mile. So, if we in the west do accept having much, much less of everything, won't there be more resources for the developing world to consume? And won't they just go ahead and consume them? If we stop using oil, then the price of oil will plummet, and the third world will finally be able to consume it in the same quantities that we do now.

Surely if wealth is redistributed, then more people will be able to have middle class lifestyles, like, a large house, two cars, holidays abroad, money to buy beef etc. That would mean more emissions wouldn't it? Isn't it better for the climate for most people to have no money - and therefore generate low emissions per person? I mean, the super rich do generate more than their fair share, but really, does a single billion pound yacht produce the same CO2 as as ten thousand Corsas or Fiestas? I don't think so. Same reasoning applies to stopping immigration (I should have specified, from developing countries). Better for the climate that they stay in their countries and be poor, and produce less emissions, than come here and live the way we do, and produce way more. It's logical.

The demographic of Europe are generally aging, negative replacement rates. So the population is naturally shrinking. If people were serious about wanting lower population levels, then they would be 100% supportive of zero immigration policy.