Pair guilty of cutting down Sycamore Gap tree

[Pierre]

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.

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?

[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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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.

Irrelevant. The hotels don’t own the tree, and therefore have no claim over it.

They may lose revenue, but they have no recourse against the lumberjacks.

The landowner, and therefore the owner of the tree, is the National Trust. Expect them to include costs borne by any local tenant of theirs as part of the overall damage cost.

Tourists ? How many, given its in a 34 year old film for about a minute.
I've seen the film at least twice and still dont really remember that small scene, I had to look it up.

[papa smurf]

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.

It was just a tree now it's just fire wood, let's not elevate it to sainthood.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Paul

Tourists ? How many, given its in a 34 year old film for about a minute.
I've seen the film at least twice and still dont really remember that small scene, I had to look it up.

Ok lets change it up

Do you think it is ok these guys went and cut down the tree?

If not do you think playing down as just a tree serves any good? afterall knocking down a castle must be ok too because it is just stone or filling in a lake because it is just water

[papa smurf]

i think some good can come from this, the logs can be donated to pensioners who have log burners to keep warm

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Ok lets change it up

Do you think it is ok these guys went and cut down the tree?

If not do you think playing down as just a tree serves any good? afterall knocking down a castle must be ok too because it is just stone or filling in a lake because it is just water

So everybody that cuts down a tree should be prosecuted in the same way?
The reactions are disproportionate to the act.
Nothing special about a tree at the bottom of a valley.
Still nowhere near a valuation of over £600,000.
Compare that with £10,000 of damage to a Van Gogh painting.
Nobody would have an overnight hotel stay just to get a selfie with it.

[peanut]

I think this really goes to show the differences between each other.

[papa smurf]

Reality check

To build the Royal Navy's ships, particularly during the late 1700s and early 1800s, an estimated 1.2 million oak trees were felled. This was primarily for constructing ships of the line, with a large ship like HMS Victory needing around 6,000 trees.

[nomadking]

Link

The cutting down of an ancient oak in north London was ordered on health and safety grounds by the pub chain that owns Toby Carvery after it was told the tree was dead.
The felled oak, estimated to be about 500 years old, was found by council workers at the edge of Whitewebbs Park in Enfield earlier in April. An emergency tree preservation order has now been imposed on what remains of the tree, which is near a Toby Carvery.
The tree, with a girth of 6m (20ft), was a nationally significant pedunculate oak listed on the Woodland Trust's ancient tree inventory.
...
The Met Police confirmed it had received a report from the council, but it is understood the force believes there is no evidence of criminality.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Ok lets change it up

Do you think it is ok these guys went and cut down the tree?

If not do you think playing down as just a tree serves any good? afterall knocking down a castle must be ok too because it is just stone or filling in a lake because it is just water

I don’t think anyone thinks it’s ok that anyone cut down a tree nor the fact that there was also damage to Hadrians Wall due to the felling.

However, I’d like anyone to justify why they should be held on remand until sentencing? Its been done as a public appeasement rather than anything else

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Reality check

To build the Royal Navy's ships, particularly during the late 1700s and early 1800s, an estimated 1.2 million oak trees were felled. This was primarily for constructing ships of the line, with a large ship like HMS Victory needing around 6,000 trees.

Another reality check…

In Medieval England, trespass against the vert, meaning harming or damaging the forest's vegetation, carried severe penalties, including fines, mutilation, and even death, depending on the severity of the offense. Punishments for disrupting the forest's natural state varied significantly, with fines being common for minor infractions and more severe punishments, such as blinding or cutting off limbs, for those who disturbed deer or boar

[peanut]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I don’t think anyone thinks it’s ok that anyone cut down a tree nor the fact that there was also damage to Hadrians Wall due to the felling.

However, I’d like anyone to justify why they should be held on remand until sentencing? Its been done as a public appeasement rather than anything else

You've said it yourself. Explain why the need for it to be a public appeasement if it was 'just' a tree?