RIP - Hadrian’s wall tree

[Time Waster]

If they were to get off does that clear the way for me to walk on to anyone’s land with my chainsaw and cut down a tree without consequence. Maybe cut down a couple in your garden one night for a laugh. 😱

No but I bet that would be treated as a civil matter and wouldn't get much public money to chase after you to punish you.. That's the point really, it should have been handled with the true damage caused not the offence and daily fail outrage like it has now. This is not a special tree.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I was more annoyed about the oak that Toby Carvery chopped down in Enfield. That was a genuinely ancient tree, several hundred years older than this whippersnapper of a sycamore.

 

[T4tomo]

I was more annoyed about the oak that Toby Carvery chopped down in Enfield. That was a genuinely ancient tree, several hundred years older than this whippersnapper of a sycamore.

agreed, but that was either on or overshadowing M&B land, which is why they won't end up in court, they had it hacked down before a TPO could be put in place.

 

[Dogtrousers]

 

[Fastpedaller]

agreed, but that was either on or overshadowing M&B land, which is why they won't end up in court, they had it hacked down before a TPO could be put in place.

Don't all oaks get 'automatic' tree protection? I thought oaks couldn't just be knocked down (but I may be wrong, I usually am )

 

[Alex321]

No but I bet that would be treated as a civil matter and wouldn't get much public money to chase after you to punish you.. That's the point really, it should have been handled with the true damage caused not the offence and daily fail outrage like it has now. This is not a special tree.

No, it would not be treated as a civil matter, because it would be criminal damage. Usually Magistrates court if less then £5000 worth of damage, Crown court if more.

And a tree of that size would certainly be over the £5000 value.

 

[Mike_P]

Don't all oaks get 'automatic' tree protection? I thought oaks couldn't just be knocked down (but I may be wrong, I usually am )

The Oak was on council owned land and as a responsible body council land trees are not normally made the subject of a tree preservation order. That case if their is one would be along lines of criminal damage to council property.

 

[Gillstay]

Personally I hope they get off but then I think the whole case shows how idiotic we are as a nation over some insignificant trees. It was growing close to a listed monument. A sycamore growing the close to your house you'd have issues and need an insurance claim to remove it and sort the issues out I reckon but a listed monument the tree was safe. Indeed the nation wails and sobs over it when it was cut down. Like it was a much loved child, not the annoying one you're looking forward to turning 18 and can kick out the house.

You could have a Sycamore grow close to your house if you had decent foundations, you don't need an insurance claim to remove a tree, and you might not have issues. The tree gave a lot of pleasure to people so why trash it ? If it was your your bike they trashed it would equally be a senseless waste.

 

[MontyVeda]

You could have a Sycamore grow close to your house if you had decent foundations, you don't need an insurance claim to remove a tree, and you might not have issues. The tree gave a lot of pleasure to people so why trash it ? If it was your your bike they trashed it would equally be a senseless waste.

I believe the point is... Would there be an outcry on a similar (vast) scale if his bike had been trashed?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

agreed, but that was either on or overshadowing M&B land

Which they lease, but do not own.

 

[T4tomo]

Which they lease, but do not own.

Probably, but the usual "full repairing lease" would make them responsible for maintenance and I'm sure they would be claiming "compliance with Health and Safety obligations" that the dodgy tree surgeons said it was a danger to the public so they had to take swift action.

As to why they didn't just trim any dangerous bits off rather than butcher the whole thing.....

 

[T4tomo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g3kxx1k6xo

I assume trial resumes today...

 

[Gillstay]

Probably, but the usual "full repairing lease" would make them responsible for maintenance and I'm sure they would be claiming "compliance with Health and Safety obligations" that the dodgy tree surgeons said it was a danger to the public so they had to take swift action.

As to why they didn't just trim any dangerous bits off rather than butcher the whole thing.....

They didn't need to trim anything off it. They could have just fenced it off.

 

[captain nemo1701]

In the end, its two A-holes filming themselves committing an act of vandalism. Rather like those idiots who record themselves doing 120mph, put it up on Youtube and then wonder why the police come knocking. Okay, just a Sycamore but a living tree nonetheless and famous around the world. Until two brain-dead members of the species decided otherwise (hope they get a bit of porridge). I see guys spraying the walls and fences of the Railway Path I use here in Bristol. They sometimes spray the asphalt itself. Its nice to see some old stone railway bridge abutments coated in moss etc....but then you get some awful tag in silver sprayed all over it...bit like dogs peeing on lamp posts etc, isn't it?. I've often wished I could trace those responsible and sneak out in the wee hours to spray their front door, just to see how they like my 'art'.

 

[Time Waster]

They didn't need to trim anything off it. They could have just fenced it off.

And lose customers through loss of carpark? Neither what they did nor fencing off is a solution, but trimming it back in a less severe way might have been the best way forward.

It is the case that there are cowboy tree surgeons around and not all know what they are doing. Would the person hiring them know how good they really were? Could they have known before the work that the tree surgeons were over keen with chainsaws? All questions I have at least.