[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Chris

It did attract tourism, having really begun to be very famous when it featured in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves in 1990. There will be lost tourism costs, but also costs associated with disposal of the tree and grounds maintenance costs with nurturing its replacement over several years to come.

It really isn’t “just a tree”, no matter how perplexing all this is to those who think in such black and white terms.

I agree with you

If it attracted tourism then there is a tangible loss of revenue. How you would measure that I do not know but there is a loss

---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Nearly All that agreed……..it is just a tree.

Who owns it?

Because, surely only whoever owns it can claim against it, and can they prove they own it?

what about the hotels that put up tourists who come to see the tree from the film? the cafes and restaurants that fed them? it could be argued they lost potential income.