R Mac

I have a pre 97 licence so I think I'm ok on that, could you explain the part about front/rear axle weights.

Sorry I might have misread it, there are a few columns with annotations and it appears I was looking at the Australian version, the UK version is 1500kg braked and no distinction between single or twin axle. It's an 06/07 Honda CR-V Diesel. I checked the chassis plate it reads as follows _ - 2140 _ - 3640 1 - 1090 2 - 1070

That's what the handbook is saying, it gives the max towing weights for braked/unbraked, single axle/twin axle and Auto Trans/Manual Trans. Single Axle Braked, Manual transmission = 1200kg Twin Axle Braked, Manual transmission = 1500kg

I'll maybe pass on that thanks all the same

Ain't that the truth

I was thinking about a big fixed spool beachcasting reel, the only downside I could think of is you can only access one end of the throwline. I'm not sure how often I'd need to use the other end I wonder how well the throwline would come off the spool without the extra leverage?? that normally comes from having the weight hanging off the end of a 12" beach rod (when fishing), should be fine with a Big Shot though. I ordered a Weaver cube, not sure if they come with tangle fairies although I wouldn't be surprised if using a Weaver cube resulted in a a nice piece of tweed fabric sailing out behind the throwbag.

yes So I can carry 800kg on a GD84 single, 1050kg on a GD84 twin?

Hi Folks, quick question, car is rated to pull 1500kg on a twin axle trailer and 1200kg on a single axle, I assume I need to subtract the actual weight of the trailer from that figure to find the max kg load I can put on the trailer. e.g ifor williams GD84 single axle, Gross weight 1500kg, Unladen weight 400kg = max load of 1100kg I can use the full 1100kg load capacity as my vehicle is rated to tow 1200kg ifor williams GD84 twin axle, Gross weight 2700kg, Unladen weight 450kg = 2250kg I'm restricted to 1050kg max as the towing vehicle is rated for rated for 1500kg (1050kg load + 450kg unladen weight)

I think there's some confusion over why someone would want chainsaw wellies, in my case it isn't because my regular boots aren't waterproof, they are, Stihl Advance GTX, i.e. Gore-Tex lined but the reality is that like any waterproof boot they're only waterproof if the water/mud isn't deeper than the top of the boot. Personally I wouldn't choose pull on wellies over laced leather boots normally but the idea that I might be tramping around all day in a pair of leather boots that have been filled with a combination of peat/mud/water when I could have pulled on a pair of wellies for the time it took to get clear of the really wet areas and then switch back to my comfortable leather boots seems like a good idea to me. I'm going for the Oregon basic version.

Fantastic to see that crime levels have declined sufficiently and habitual criminals have been re-educated successfully which gives the police plenty of time to root around in peoples houses looking for illegal weapons, watch out inner city drug dealers your days are numbered.

Still have a Quasar from back when Terra Nova was Wild Country. Of course Phoenix were even better

Just went out to see if my Yeti Extreme would fit my chainsaw boots, no go for me, my Stihl Advance are just too bulky at the toe. I'd expect wellies to be less comfortable but they might be useful to have to hand if things were getting really wet/boggy. So the general feeling then is they're all uncomfortable so if you must have them cheapest is the sensible option?

Hilleberg better than Terra Nova

I know, I've seen it before, you get it on every internet forum specific to any subject known to man. Guess there must be a lot of sheep out there. It kinda seems ar$e about face, the punter pays the manufacturer but feels that he owes loyalty rather than the other way around, strange indeed.

Funny I was considering chainsaw wellies, apart from the ones you mention there's Oregon, Hunter Forester and Arbortec. If you want a warm liner wear wool socks. Anyone tried Yeti Gaiters over their regular chainsaw boots?

I would say that's anything but ok, if someone has only ever used one make of saw and has had generally good experiences of the brand then they should give advice based on that rather than rubbishing brands with which they have no experience. Anyone can go on to the Chainsaw section of the forum and find a thread dealing with the failings of almost any saw. As far as justifying your purchases to other people, why?

Well of course you're wrong (or are you)

Human nature to a degree, a bit like arguing about football for hours on end, it seems that some people feel the need to validate their choice not by giving the reasons they use what they use but by rubbishing the things they don't use. There are guys out there earning a living using all makes of saws, in the end it isn't about the saw. Strangely although I own a Husky but don't own a Stihl I used both an MS200T and T540XP doing my CS39 and preferred the MS200T, probably down to being a novice and the Husky seemed a bit hairy for me. I do own Stihl boots though, guess that means I can't use a Husky saw now

I bought Zubat 330 on the basis that I borrowed the instructors when on CS38/39 and it seemed fine to me, not that I had anything to compare it with apart from an almost new cheapie pruning saw. The instructors well used Zubat cut 3 times as much over 10 strokes compared to my cheapie. Honey Brothers for my Zubat.

I agree that as the law stands you can't shoot someone in a premeditated way and the prosecution were able to convince the jury in this case. The question is how do you define 'Premeditated'? Is the fact that you've already decided to protect yourself enough to prove that the act is premeditated, if that's the case then anyone who defends themselves could be said to act in a premeditated manner. One of the most basic human instincts is self preservation, are to to be held accountable for acting on what is an inherent instinct. Is it not the right of everyone to act in a premeditated way to protect themselves from a premeditated act, in this case burglery? it seems in this case that in the eyes of the law the answer is no, in other words your destiny is in the hands of the law makers, forces of law and order, courts and the criminals.

You can make as many hypothetical cases as you like about what may or may not happen, fact is they were in his house, uninvited got shot, running away? is the home owner supposed to make a judgement call, did he know how many intruders there were? Easy to look at it with hindsight when you aren't the one dealing with events as they unfold. Bottom line is if they hadn't been preying on the vulnerable they wouldn't have come to harm, zero sympathy from me. So he laid some traps? so what, his property and in this case inside his actual dwelling. Is the fact that he may have been unhinged (was he unhinged anyway, he didn't drive to the nearest town and gun down innocent civilians and then claim diminished responsibility) due to prior events and lack of help from the forces of law and order mean that he is no longer entitled to defend himself and his property As far as premeditated goes, look at how many people on here have suffered from theft in the past couple of months, how many said they'd like to get their hands on whoever did it, in 6 months time if they happened to be on site when a break in took place and were forced to defend themselves would things they've said in the heat of the moment now mean that their future actions were premeditated? A prosecution layer would argue that it was but that doesn't make it so. The need to defend yourself in a court of law for actions taken in trying to defend yourself or your property against charges brought by the forces of law and order who it could be argued were partly to blame for the situation arising due to their failings is nothing short of shameful.

Agree 100%, far too many "Paper Experts" and as someone mentioned earlier about the stranded van/trailer load of timber the police rank & file have either lost all common sense or they've given up in the face of bureaucracy because they too are reduced to 'Box Ticking' excercises by 'career managers' There is a section of society who, being incapable of anything else have created a niche which they fill by being self confidant bullies capable of bulls*******g their way through life while contributing nothing of any value, many of them go on to be politcians. Take a look at the 'workforce' of any company, the office/management staff outnumber the production workers in almost every case and the bigger the company the greater the percentage of office staff/managers.

I suspect that a person needing to use a phone in an emergency would be unlikely to break and enter in an attempt to use it, not impossible but unlikely.

Was there? as I understand it 2 burglars entered his property without his consent, he attempted to protect himself/his property with a shotgun that was judged to be illegally held only on the basis that it was capable of holding more than 2 cartridges in the magazine, it isn't as if he was in possession of an assault rifle. There was of course the issue of where he actually opened fire from but IMO that's a case of muddying the waters, bottom line if the burglers hadn't been in his property without his consent they'd wouldn't have been shot.