Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • 2

Is this tree going to die and dangerous


Bigben143
 Share

Question

Recommended Posts

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • 0
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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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 by Bolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1
8 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

He’s obviously a knuckle dragger. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Paul in the woods said:

 

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.

I still can’t make head nor tale of the order of the posts (can’t really be bothered to re-read it all in some sort of order) and, I found I was just skim reading the OPs lengthy and rather garbled posts....

 

On reflection - IF - we take all the hassles described by the OP at face value - AND - the LA has (for whatever reason) been intransigent and (as appears to be interpreted by the OP) unreasonable, then the net result will almost inevitably be loss or damage to that which has been deemed worthy of retention. 
 

That’s human nature. It’s a lose lose end game. 
 

Id like to retract my previous criticism of the OP and submit a “no comment” replacement 😂 

 

If they feel they’ve been backed into a corner then they must do what they feel justified and live with the potential consequences. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.