Is this tree going to die and dangerous

[Bigben143]

Hi I'm after some advice, is this oak tree dieing ? If so will it be dangerous any time soon? This was recently done in the last week. 

 

Thank you 

[doobin]

12 hours ago, monkeybusiness said:

This thread confuses me - answers aren’t in order so don’t appear to make sense. For clarity I should have quoted the OP’s post that appeared before my (tongue-in-cheek) reply - ‘I'm not trolling I am just seeing if I have done enough that the tree will die. So local council can't keep the pto on the tree as they put the pto on it even seeing that to it’.

(I should make it clear that any ‘advice’ I put forward on this or any other Internet forums should only ever be taken with a pinch of salt).

Apologies for any confusion, or appearing to take myself too seriously...

It's OK mate,  I just voted your answer up! 🤣

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Has the original post been drastically edited such that a load of info has been removed?

 

There seems to be a million more times the info /  assumption  / opinion in the various answers than can possibly be derived from what I can see as the OP?

 

(but from what can be read, This looks like a wind-up or the behaviour / actions of a Neanderthal)

Edited March 20, 2021 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Bolt]

4 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Has the original post been drastically edited such that a load of info has been removed?

 

Nope.

 

It was pretty brief.

[Paddy1000111]

6 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Has the original post been drastically edited such that a load of info has been removed?

 

There seems to be a million more times the info /  assumption  / opinion in the various answers than can possibly be derived from what I can see as the OP?

 

(but from what can be read, This looks like a wind-up or the behaviour / actions of a Neanderthal)

It's the combined info from all the ops posts. If you set it to sort by date then you can see all his replies in order explaining what he did 

[Bolt]

6 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

There seems to be a million more times the info /  assumption  / opinion in the various answers than can possibly be derived from what I can see as the OP?

 

I think that came from the Original Posters next 17 comments.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

5 minutes ago, Bolt said:

Nope.

 

It was pretty brief.

 

3 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

It's the combined info from all the ops posts. If you set it to sort by date then you can see all his replies in order explaining what he did 

 

2 minutes ago, Bolt said:

 

I think that came from the Original Posters next 17 comments.

That clears that up then. 
 

He’s obviously a knuckle dragger. 

[Bolt]

12 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

 

That clears that up then. 
 

He’s obviously a knuckle dragger. 

Well, at least he had a go, bless.

 

From some of the comments, I would assume that the closest some of the contributors have got to tree work is watching Countryfile.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Bolt

[Stubby]

47 minutes ago, Bolt said:

 Countryfile.

Who was it said " Blue Peter for adults " ? Made I larf 😁

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

That's a bit harsh. From what I can gather from the posts council used to own the tree and the land it was on. Council have not looked after trees on the land and not compensated anyone when they dropped limbs causing £1,000s of damage. Council offered to remove tree if the home owner paid.

 

Home owner ended up buying the land from the council, council did not TPO tree. When the home owner started getting quotes to fell the council got wind and decided to TPO. I assumed one of the arborists enquired with the council about a TPO and that's why they acted? Again I assume some how the home owner got wind of the council getting wind and decided to ring bark said tree. (I've seen that suggested by people here before).

 

Sadly I doubt we'll find out exactly what happened and the outcome.

There’s a lot of assumptions there mate. 
 

I can hardly make any sense of the thread the way it’s all jumbled up in order of what has been said. 
 

Im no fan of misplaced LA inappropriate application of TPOs (or lazy ‘public amenity’ catch-all refusals of work schedules) but that’s not to say I’ve seen anything here that makes any sense so far - apart from those comments that say careful how you (OP) carry on. 

[Paul in the woods]

8 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

There’s a lot of assumptions there mate. 
 

I can hardly make any sense of the thread the way it’s all jumbled up in order of what has been said. 
 

Im no fan of misplaced LA inappropriate application of TPOs (or lazy ‘public amenity’ catch-all refusals of work schedules) but that’s not to say I’ve seen anything here that makes any sense so far - apart from those comments that say careful how you (OP) carry on. 

 

I certainly agree with the advice and I'm often pleasantly surprised how helpful some members are here. I would also add to that a warning to the OP that it's not unheard of for cash strapped councils to fight lost causes.

 

However, unlike others who've ignored what the OP said or assumed they'll lying and condemned them I've assumed they've been fairly truthful and can easily understand why they did what they did.