The two guys who are accused of this dastardly act are to go on trial at the end of this month…..£622.000 of damage was caused to the tree and for the repairs to Hadrians Wall onto which the tree fell.
What was their reason for doing it, or they still denying it?
I believe it's because they're a pair of wankers.
Yeah, couldn't agree more. Just wondered what would motivate someone to do something that is so pointless, yet so despicable. Or was it just to get their names in the paper
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
I have been a member of The Woodland Trust for a few years now. It only costs me £4 a month.. Very worthwhile organisation, who largely depend on public donations. Give it some thought folks, it’s not even the cost of a pint.
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
on the other hand i'm sure if you wanted it gone you could pay to get "expert advice" to back up that you need to have it removed- or am I being a tad cynical?
What was their reason for doing it, or they still denying it?
I believe it's because they're a pair of wankers.
Yeah, couldn't agree more. Just wondered what would motivate someone to do something that is so pointless, yet so despicable. Or was it just to get their names in the paper
Reasons I saw from some local gossip on Reddit is to do with them being annoyed by tourists. No idea of that's true, but would probably be something that petty
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
Yes regarding criminality, hence my second paragraph. On health and safety grounds, yes, we could reasonably expect action, and that's the justification being used here. However it's not their land and it's not their tree. I think that's one of the points of contention and why this is likely to get closer attention as and when and if the new bill progresses.
Another aspect that Woodland trust has brought up is whether the tree was actually a danger. They are disputing as to whether it was in fact 'dead', and what other measures could have been put in place other than felling it.
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
on the other hand i'm sure if you wanted it gone you could pay to get "expert advice" to back up that you need to have it removed- or am I being a tad cynical?
True enough. But in this case I can't see what benefit there is to the pub in wanting it gone - it's at the edge of the car park and not right near the pub itself. It's a lot of expense to go to to commission a report and then have something that size cut down. I reckon they were more worried about it falling on someone (or someone's car) and getting sued.
As for it being the council's land and so they should've been approached to cut it down. Maybe. But this is a local council we're talking about. They generally can't even cut the grass in the local parks, so how long would it take them to get round to that? All the while the pub is potentially on the hook if it falls down and they've done nothing abut it.
Seems like a bit of a non-story really. We've gone overnight from a seemingly random act of wilful vandalism of a healthy tree by unknown yobbos to a safety led commercial decision taken by the legal leaseholder on the advice of experts to cut down a dangerously fragile dead tree.
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
on the other hand i'm sure if you wanted it gone you could pay to get "expert advice" to back up that you need to have it removed- or am I being a tad cynical?
True enough. But in this case I can't see what benefit there is to the pub in wanting it gone - it's at the edge of the car park and not right near the pub itself. It's a lot of expense to go to to commission a report and then have something that size cut down. I reckon they were more worried about it falling on someone (or someone's car) and getting sued.
As for it being the council's land and so they should've been approached to cut it down. Maybe. But this is a local council we're talking about. They generally can't even cut the grass in the local parks, so how long would it take them to get round to that? All the while the pub is potentially on the hook if it falls down and they've done nothing abut it.
Seems like a bit of a non-story really. We've gone overnight from a seemingly random act of wilful vandalism of a healthy tree by unknown yobbos to a safety led commercial decision taken by the legal leaseholder on the advice of experts to cut down a dangerously fragile dead tree.
It's not a non story as the tree is very important for biodiversity and the reasons for cutting it down are debateable. I've just watched an expert from The Woodland Trust saying that it has many years of life left in it and a few dead branches should be expected for a tree of this age. The land is only leased to the owners of Toby Carvery and the Council is saying that they may have breached the terms of their lease.
An ancient oak such as this one can house up to 2,300 species so is a big loss for wildlife.
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
That sort of cool headed rationalism doesn't foment rage and indignation in the nation's tabloid 'readership' though does it?
Felling any mature tree is a dreadful shame and ecological vandalism. I get that there might be a safety issue. That being the case then the minimum requirement has to be the planting of two replacement native specimens in a safe location nearby. Seems odd to me that a nationally known brand would be courting bad publicity with such an action. It never takes much to rile up the enviromentalists, especially when there's a genuine eco issue.
-edit Wedneday evening - Enfield council, the landlord, now saying they weren't consulted and that they'd 'surveyed the tree in December and it was healthy and safe'. Somebody at Toby has ballsed up bigtime and should be for the chop. The fine old oak tree is still dead tho innit?
I have a new neighbour who is 'landscaping' his recently acquired plot. He has this week felled 3 mature Scotch Pine trees that had stood at the boundary of his garden for as long as anyone can remember. They were all taller than his 3 storey house and if a storm blew up from the right direction it would be conceivable that they could fall towards the house. That had no bearing on his ecological vandalism, he just doesn't like them. I commented in passing that it is a shame for fine old specimens to be cut down, especially as they clean and replenish our atmosphere. He grunted something about concreting the area to park his penis substitute gas guzzler. I'm no ornithological authority and have no specific knowledge on which bird species might utilise scotch pine but felling trees in peak nesting season is heinous. Even the local cattle farmer doesn't flay his hedgerows between Christmas and midsummer. He isn't technically breaking any current rules, as there weren't any extant TPO's in place - I checked - he is unarguably a selfish philistine and dickhead.
We've had several tree planting initiatives held locally, but unfortunately it's led to ripping up newly planted saplings becoming a favourite past time for kids near here, and their parents couldn't give a shit. Waste of time and money for those trying to do their bit for their futures.
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
on the other hand i'm sure if you wanted it gone you could pay to get "expert advice" to back up that you need to have it removed- or am I being a tad cynical?
True enough. But in this case I can't see what benefit there is to the pub in wanting it gone - it's at the edge of the car park and not right near the pub itself. It's a lot of expense to go to to commission a report and then have something that size cut down. I reckon they were more worried about it falling on someone (or someone's car) and getting sued.
As for it being the council's land and so they should've been approached to cut it down. Maybe. But this is a local council we're talking about. They generally can't even cut the grass in the local parks, so how long would it take them to get round to that? All the while the pub is potentially on the hook if it falls down and they've done nothing abut it.
Seems like a bit of a non-story really. We've gone overnight from a seemingly random act of wilful vandalism of a healthy tree by unknown yobbos to a safety led commercial decision taken by the legal leaseholder on the advice of experts to cut down a dangerously fragile dead tree.
It's not a non story as the tree is very important for biodiversity and the reasons for cutting it down are debateable. I've just watched an expert from The Woodland Trust saying that it has many years of life left in it and a few dead branches should be expected for a tree of this age. The land is only leased to the owners of Toby Carvery and the Council is saying that they may have breached the terms of their lease.
An ancient oak such as this one can house up to 2,300 species so is a big loss for wildlife.
And if one of those few dead branches falls on your head?
Personally I think it's a shame when something that old goes - naturally or otherwise. But my point was that it wasn't the story of wanton vandalism that it was reported as at first. Far from it, it would seem.
We've had several tree planting initiatives held locally, but unfortunately it's led to ripping up newly planted saplings becoming a favourite past time for kids near here, and their parents couldn't give a shit. Waste of time and money for those trying to do their bit for their futures.
We can't stop planting trees in case they are vandalised. Children need to be taught the value of trees and other wildlife for their own future.
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
on the other hand i'm sure if you wanted it gone you could pay to get "expert advice" to back up that you need to have it removed- or am I being a tad cynical?
True enough. But in this case I can't see what benefit there is to the pub in wanting it gone - it's at the edge of the car park and not right near the pub itself. It's a lot of expense to go to to commission a report and then have something that size cut down. I reckon they were more worried about it falling on someone (or someone's car) and getting sued.
As for it being the council's land and so they should've been approached to cut it down. Maybe. But this is a local council we're talking about. They generally can't even cut the grass in the local parks, so how long would it take them to get round to that? All the while the pub is potentially on the hook if it falls down and they've done nothing abut it.
Seems like a bit of a non-story really. We've gone overnight from a seemingly random act of wilful vandalism of a healthy tree by unknown yobbos to a safety led commercial decision taken by the legal leaseholder on the advice of experts to cut down a dangerously fragile dead tree.
It's not a non story as the tree is very important for biodiversity and the reasons for cutting it down are debateable. I've just watched an expert from The Woodland Trust saying that it has many years of life left in it and a few dead branches should be expected for a tree of this age. The land is only leased to the owners of Toby Carvery and the Council is saying that they may have breached the terms of their lease.
An ancient oak such as this one can house up to 2,300 species so is a big loss for wildlife.
And if one of those few dead branches falls on your head?
Personally I think it's a shame when something that old goes - naturally or otherwise. But my point was that it wasn't the story of wanton vandalism that it was reported as at first. Far from it, it would seem.
The story has been developing and there'll be more to come yet no doubt. This story has legs as it highlights gaps in current protections. If this tree had life left in it as seems to be the case from recent council and Woodland Trust records, and alternative measures could have been put in place, then Toby Carvery hiding behind health and safety regs as they have interpreted them won't hold up.
We've had several tree planting initiatives held locally, but unfortunately it's led to ripping up newly planted saplings becoming a favourite past time for kids near here, and their parents couldn't give a shit. Waste of time and money for those trying to do their bit for their futures.
We can't stop planting trees in case they are vandalised. Children need to be taught the value of trees and other wildlife for their own future.
Agree, but the siting of such schemes ought to take account of possible vandalism. It shouldn't have to of course, but that's the reality. They need to be planted away from areas where potentially mischievous kids are likely to congregate. Planting them near a sports centre and a skatepark seems to have increased the likelihood of vandalism here. Few if any have survived (the saplings that is, not the kids!)
That actually made me laugh out loud last night when the tv film showed a big pile of wood cuttings under the tree in Enfield just as they said 'police say there is no evidence of any criminality'.
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
There was no criminality though, was there? A lease holder cut down a tree on their land. If there was no preservation order on the tree then that's that.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
on the other hand i'm sure if you wanted it gone you could pay to get "expert advice" to back up that you need to have it removed- or am I being a tad cynical?
True enough. But in this case I can't see what benefit there is to the pub in wanting it gone - it's at the edge of the car park and not right near the pub itself. It's a lot of expense to go to to commission a report and then have something that size cut down. I reckon they were more worried about it falling on someone (or someone's car) and getting sued.
As for it being the council's land and so they should've been approached to cut it down. Maybe. But this is a local council we're talking about. They generally can't even cut the grass in the local parks, so how long would it take them to get round to that? All the while the pub is potentially on the hook if it falls down and they've done nothing abut it.
Seems like a bit of a non-story really. We've gone overnight from a seemingly random act of wilful vandalism of a healthy tree by unknown yobbos to a safety led commercial decision taken by the legal leaseholder on the advice of experts to cut down a dangerously fragile dead tree.
It's not a non story as the tree is very important for biodiversity and the reasons for cutting it down are debateable. I've just watched an expert from The Woodland Trust saying that it has many years of life left in it and a few dead branches should be expected for a tree of this age. The land is only leased to the owners of Toby Carvery and the Council is saying that they may have breached the terms of their lease.
An ancient oak such as this one can house up to 2,300 species so is a big loss for wildlife.
And if one of those few dead branches falls on your head?
Personally I think it's a shame when something that old goes - naturally or otherwise. But my point was that it wasn't the story of wanton vandalism that it was reported as at first. Far from it, it would seem.
Fair point, but you don't just chop the tree down, do you? You call a tree surgeon. Sounds to me like they just wanted shot of it, heard that the council had started to make moves to put a preservation order on it, and just thought 'bollocks to the consequences' and just chopped it down.
Sort of like those shithouses who knock down or set fire to buildings with a preservation order on them (often old pubs) because they want to make money out of turning them into flats.
Comments
...✅
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/whitewebbs-woods-tree-enfield-sycamore-gap-b2733473.html
https://news.sky.com/story/ancient-oak-tree-felled-in-north-london-park-13349431
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/15/toby-carvery-admits-chopping-down-400-year-old-oak-tree/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewgypewepno
However, I get it to the extent there's no protection in law for these trees, and the police regard the Enfield case as a civil matter. Toby Carvery lease their plot from Enfield council, and the council had no prior tree protection order in place.
On Sky tv news, The Woodland Trust campaign manager pointed out that there is a new proposed law, currently a bill, moving through parliament. I was very impressed with what he said and have signed up to the Woodland Trust. It's only a few quid a month to be a member and i think this is too important to ignore. Trees do give us oxygen after all, while they soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
Very worthwhile organisation, who largely depend on public donations.
Give it some thought folks, it’s not even the cost of a pint.
But even so, when you understand why they cut it down - because they'd been advised it was dead and was only ever going to fall down at some point (or bits of it would fall off) then I'm not sure they had any option but to take that advice and deal with it. In fact, if they'd had that professional advice, done nothing and then a branch fell off onto someone's head then that probably would've been a criminal matter.
On health and safety grounds, yes, we could reasonably expect action, and that's the justification being used here. However it's not their land and it's not their tree. I think that's one of the points of contention and why this is likely to get closer attention as and when and if the new bill progresses.
Another aspect that Woodland trust has brought up is whether the tree was actually a danger. They are disputing as to whether it was in fact 'dead', and what other measures could have been put in place other than felling it.
As for it being the council's land and so they should've been approached to cut it down. Maybe. But this is a local council we're talking about. They generally can't even cut the grass in the local parks, so how long would it take them to get round to that? All the while the pub is potentially on the hook if it falls down and they've done nothing abut it.
Seems like a bit of a non-story really. We've gone overnight from a seemingly random act of wilful vandalism of a healthy tree by unknown yobbos to a safety led commercial decision taken by the legal leaseholder on the advice of experts to cut down a dangerously fragile dead tree.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1egdj1905no?xtor=AL-71-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_format=link&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBCNews&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_id=986D0EB6-1ADD-11F0-BE9
An ancient oak such as this one can house up to 2,300 species so is a big loss for wildlife.
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/oak-tree-wildlife/
Felling any mature tree is a dreadful shame and ecological vandalism.
I get that there might be a safety issue.
That being the case then the minimum requirement has to be the planting of two replacement native specimens in a safe location nearby.
Seems odd to me that a nationally known brand would be courting bad publicity with such an action.
It never takes much to rile up the enviromentalists, especially when there's a genuine eco issue.
-edit Wedneday evening - Enfield council, the landlord, now saying they weren't consulted and that they'd 'surveyed the tree in December and it was healthy and safe'. Somebody at Toby has ballsed up bigtime and should be for the chop. The fine old oak tree is still dead tho innit?
I have a new neighbour who is 'landscaping' his recently acquired plot. He has this week felled 3 mature Scotch Pine trees that had stood at the boundary of his garden for as long as anyone can remember. They were all taller than his 3 storey house and if a storm blew up from the right direction it would be conceivable that they could fall towards the house. That had no bearing on his ecological vandalism, he just doesn't like them. I commented in passing that it is a shame for fine old specimens to be cut down, especially as they clean and replenish our atmosphere. He grunted something about concreting the area to park his penis substitute gas guzzler.
I'm no ornithological authority and have no specific knowledge on which bird species might utilise scotch pine but felling trees in peak nesting season is heinous. Even the local cattle farmer doesn't flay his hedgerows between Christmas and midsummer.
He isn't technically breaking any current rules, as there weren't any extant TPO's in place - I checked - he is unarguably a selfish philistine and dickhead.
Personally I think it's a shame when something that old goes - naturally or otherwise. But my point was that it wasn't the story of wanton vandalism that it was reported as at first. Far from it, it would seem.
Love it.
Sort of like those shithouses who knock down or set fire to buildings with a preservation order on them (often old pubs) because they want to make money out of turning them into flats.
BTW I've never hung out with the guys who chopped down the Sycamore Gap!