Second arrest – this time a 60 year old

Drac
Full Member
A 60 year old has now been arrested.

His name will be released if charged I’m guessing. He won’t be too popular, especially if he lives local to that area…

Regardless of who they are, the biggest question is what exactly was their justification for doing it? As pointed out, it can’t possibly be ‘get orf moi laaand’, ‘cos it can’t possibly be their land!
It just beggars belief that anyone could have an issue with a bloody tree that in no way could possibly be an issue for anyone around there.

Lock the **** up until a) it grows back or b) he hands over the funds to have it replaced with an identical one.

CountZero
Full Member
Regardless of who they are, the biggest question is what exactly was their justification for doing it? As pointed out, it can’t possibly be ‘get orf moi laaand’, ‘cos it can’t possibly be their land!
It just beggars belief that anyone could have an issue with a bloody tree that in no way could possibly be an issue for anyone around there.

I’ve already made a few assumptions about the type of bloke in my head.

Second arrest

im syc-a-more people being implicated in this

I’ve been climbing with a guy today who used to bivvy under that tree back in the 60s when climbing at Peel Crag and Crag Lough.

That tree meant a lot of things to a lot of people.

he hands over the funds to have it replaced with an identical one.

You mean they don’t give credit at the 300-year-old tree shop?

he hands over the funds to have it replaced with an identical one

hmmmmm I sense a slight problem with that

hmmmmm I sense a slight problem with that

He should be made to assemble a duplicate, full size one from matchsticks and if it isn’t upto snuff, start again until it’s done right.

Then chop his balls off.

CountZero
Regardless of who they are, the biggest question is what exactly was their justification for doing it?

I also want to know their reasons for cutting down the tree.

My only guess is that the person is annoyed by many people visiting the tree, walking on his land and parking cars near his land etc. As a result, The person has taken his anger out of the tree.

What is the biggest size of tree that can be relocated? Would it be possible to move and replant a relatively mature tree there?

Make one of these but bigger

What is the biggest size of tree that can be relocated?

I was involved in a new school in Myanmar. I suggested more trees for shade.
The end of the week a row of trucks, a digger and a crane arrived. And I was asked where they should plant the 30foot+ tall, 18″ trunk
diameter trees they had bought…. By the end of the day we they had planted 30 trees around the school and moved the snake fencing around them.

Regardless of who they are, the biggest question is what exactly was their justification for doing it? As pointed out, it can’t possibly be ‘get orf moi laaand’, ‘cos it can’t possibly be their land!
It just beggars belief that anyone could have an issue with a bloody tree that in no way could possibly be an issue for anyone around there.

there’s a lot of easily angered people who can get incredibly angry over things that the rest of us find trivial.

it’s feasible to me that it is someone who is pissed off this the Insta fans traipsing over their land, parking in stupid places etc. it’s telling that some of the people who are most pissed off are upset either because they had recently been there and taken pics or because they had it on a bucket list!  Covid and insta have brought a lot of people to places that were previously largely ignored.  Whether this was the motivation or not; those people need to reflect on whether ticking it off a list or grabbing a picture is as harm free as it first sounds.

it’s also feasible to me that it’s a pissed off (ex)employee, if you think people get upset over stupid petty stuff (like parking and business) then by god do they get upset if they fall out with an employer.

weirder, but possible is that it’s a statement about environmental impact.  Why is it ok to cut down 200 trees over here but not one over there? In that sense it’s no more bonkers than just stop oil or maybe even some banksy art.  Simply because it was a nice view isn’t really that compelling an answer.    It’s sentimentality might be but if 100s of people drive to visit it – does it’s environmental downside outweigh its upside?  Those arguments certainly gave me more pause for thought than any “art” I’ve seen for years…

i don’t believe any of them are good enough excuses or justifications but I’m pretty sure this isn’t mindless – it was done to make a statement.  Potentially the best way for that statement to be heard is to be caught and tried in a court where the press will almost certainly publicise it widely!

Or indeed a sly move by Northumberland National Park to increase publicity 😜

I’ve already made a few assumptions about the type of bloke in my head.

Well, yes, so have I, but I can’t publish them here, without reprisals!

it’s feasible to me that it is someone who is pissed off this the Insta fans traipsing over their land,

But the land around it is National Trust land, so of no relevance to anyone else.

That’s a thought provoking post by Poly. I still think the people that did it are pricks, and don’t ‘agree’ with the logical outcome* but an audit of the number of people that drive to visit and take selfies there compared to the good the tree did (taking aside that essentially trees are good just by being) – this was an act of environmental kindness.

Yes, we know that we need to make sacrifices to our way of life in order for the greater good and in some cases those changes will be painful The tree had to go…..

Hmmm…….. there’s a pub discussion.

* as in – logic is sound but I don’t like the outcome

I think people may be disappointed with the outcome for the offender. Presumably the tree has a TPO type thing on its what offence has the person caused other than cut down a tree with a TPO (which is typically a fine of a £1,000 or so where I live) or is it different t than that?

In the eyes of the law it is a tree and how famous that tree is doesn’t make any difference just the same as if I murder a famous person it is not different that me murdering Bob down the road.

but an audit of the number of people that drive to visit and take selfies there compared to the good the tree did

People do actually go there to see the most dramatic sections of Hadrians Wall not just the much less old but (was) perfectly placed tree. Removing the tree won’t massively impact visitor numbers but will cause a drop in midnight photographers bumbling about the place. Which tbh knowing what twunts a few of the tenant farmers are in the vicinity could be their ill thought reasoning for such a terrible overreaction crime.

I think people may be disappointed with the outcome for the offender.

You need permission to fell a tree near a scheduled monument normally, and the fact it was felled over it means it could have been damaged. That’s a criminal offence, so there is hope yet, although this is my own opinion, not seen anything in the media, probably as they don’t do any research

I hope they don’t name those responsible. My view is that those types would wear it as a badge of honour.

Starve them of attention and deny them their infamy.

If they can just make one more arrest then they’ll have the tree fellers that did this.

But the land around it is National Trust land, so of no relevance to anyone else.

I’ve not been – but is it all Nat Trust that people visiting park/walk over?  Does Nat Trust farm it themselves or have tennant farmers (who may not own it but will certainly have an opinion on who should/should not walk/park there).  You could probably also add a tennant (whether farmer or not) who’s pissed off at Nat Trust for whatever reason like a rent increase or eviction notice to my list of potentials.

I think people may be disappointed with the outcome for the offender. Presumably the tree has a TPO type thing on its what offence has the person caused other than cut down a tree with a TPO (which is typically a fine of a £1,000 or so where I live) or is it different t than that?

most likely to be prosecuted as criminal damage which *can* carry a custodial sentence.  I’d be surprised if it wasn’t part of the scheduled monument protection – but I suspect simple criminal damage is a bigger penalty and straightforward prosecution if they have evidence.

id expect the outcome would be the same as if I went and cut my neighbours tree down when they were on holiday or the people throwing paint at famous paintings in galleries.  considerably more than tagging a bus stop but still not enough to make people who are furious feel it’s justice.  I expect if this is a first offender they will get a suspended prison sentence, with unpaid community work.

Breakfast sketch … Went a bit gloomy :-(

What is the biggest size of tree that can be relocated? Would it be possible to move and replant a relatively mature tree there?

It’s not dead. Anyway it’s whin stone up there, good luck using that machine to dig a perfect hole in the exact spot through the stone and not damaging the wall. Let alone it even getting in there.

Even if the perpetrators get a lenient sentence, then I think local people won’t let them off the hook that easily. Locals probably know who these idiots are by now.

The guy, recently evicted from Plankey Mill Farm, appears to be in the frame for this.  Clearly, someone with a rather large axe (or saw) to grind…

Hmm interesting. Article here contains the following quote

“Walter told ChronicleLive at the time the battle had “broken a proud man” adding: “I was born here. It is like a tree with roots”.

Maybe we should all crowdfund a sculptor to create a steel or bronze replacement and ‘plant’ that there instead? If everyone in the country who has clearly been touched by this contributed a fiver we could have a magnificent piece of public art created.

He was evicted by the Jesuits, so why (allegedly) destroy a landmark tree on National Trust land?  I don’t get it?

“He was evicted by the Jesuits, so why (allegedly) destroy a landmark tree on National Trust land?  I don’t get it?”

Because NT were one of the complainants to the land owners (Jesuits) about his “illegal” campsite and associated noise?

Maybe we should all crowdfund a sculptor to create a steel or bronze replacement and ‘plant’ that there instead?

Given that all the photos seem to be taken from the same angle, a simple silhouette would suffice.

blokeuptheroad
Full Member
He was evicted by the Jesuits, so why (allegedly) destroy a landmark tree on National Trust land? I don’t get it?

As saix above (*if* he is the perp!), he had a run in with the NT too apparently.

Let’s face it, this is just a much lower level parallel of the disgruntled American worker that goes into his office with an AR15 because it’s “all his coworkers fault” he’s just gone bankrupt/gone through a divorce or whatever.

Lower level thank goodness but similar motivational mindset.

Arborist, local, and some family history here. Sorry to urinate on everyone’s picnic but it’s no more than 100yrs old. The immediate area has been systematically cleared to give it prominence over time. Plus wear from walkers, sightseers etc plus husbandry, have all contributed to it’s iconic status. Not to say the act of vandalism wasn’t reprehensible,  but some of the utter emotional nonsense is ridiculous. I hope some memorial icon isn’t commissioned to replace it, but they’ll be queuing up for grants no doubt. It’ll coppice itself, but it’ll take 30 yrs and some careful management to get the iconic shape back. Maybe not good enough for the “want it now” people.

Local here.

It’s well over a 100 years old but way less than 200. Sorry to piss in your chips @brian2 but it was a planted copse by John Clayton, he bought large areas of land to protect the wall. He had much of covered with turf to prevent it being used for building. It was the only tree to survive. But yes, it’ll grow back within a few decades.

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/meet-man-saved-hadrians-wall/

OK Drac. Well over, but way less. Whatever. But yes, manicured.

the utter emotional nonsense is ridiculous

If people feel an emotional connection with it, I think it’s a bit crass to call that ‘ridiculous’, even if you don’t feel it.  Does that include relatives of those who chose to have their ashes scattered beneath it? Or to propose marriage there?  Yes there’s some sentimentalism involved that isn’t 100% rational or clear headed, but many thousands of people feel it and I hold my hands up to feeling it too.  It is also symptomatic of the more widespread disregard for nature and the environment and has clearly struck a poignant chord with a great many people. Not sure ‘ridiculous’ is the best descriptor for that sentiment tbh.

but some of the utter emotional nonsense is ridiculous

You’ll be telling me next it’s ridiculous to tear up at a Mahler symphony.