Whats all the fuss about ?

[janey]

It seems the insurers have different ideas...This is what I mean about "reason" gettin a fair punt...

 

BBC NEWS | England | Somerset | Dispute takes root over oak tree

 

Having read the Beeb article, i'd like to know why remedial work and / or an exclusion zone wasn't considered. Hmmm, pondering time.

[Meep]

Tree protesters are typical bleeding heart liberals IMO:sneaky2:

[dodger]

i wonder is any these protesters would like to take on the Resonability of this tree and let them have all Resonabilitys ie fighting with you insurance or face any man slaughter charges if it come down at anytime and killed or injure anyone

[David Humphries]

i wonder is any these protesters would like to take on the Resonability of this tree and let them have all Resonabilitys ie fighting with you insurance or face any man slaughter charges if it come down at anytime and killed or injure anyone

 

 

 

Your point is quite obviously merited, but I feel the often over used get out clause of "if" is just too easily used and offers absolutely no deference to the place that Trees (not specifically this Lucombe) have in the wider public conscience of well being and sense of place within Landscape, which when removed, more often than not, never truly gets to be replaced by our currently non-visionary society and planners.

 

I do not profess to lay claim to the associated experience or skill of the poor isolated Consultant that either defends or attacks the reason for any Tree related berievement, (and I doth my cap to the undoubted respect that's due) but..........we must not lose sight of the black & white figures (within a population of 60 odd million people) of loss of life related to Trees compared with other far more dangerous public/hazard interations eg; swimming, walking, driving etc, etc.......

 

By all means fell, but do it when the risk of failure has extensively been researched and determined based upon fact, not if it has the mere potential.

 

Lets get the expence of the precurement & training of using the right technology for further inspection, met by those who hold the purse strings, for the safe retention of these public assests, and not just the removing of the nuicance.

 

 

 

.

[Rob Murf]

‘Councillors received advice from a tree surgeon who said the roots had become infected with a fungal disease’.

 

Are"Truffles" are a fungal root disease on oaks?

[Khriss]

A 'fungal ' -'infection' of a root ? I believe that is a common ecological process....... Better fell every tree on that basis then. But seriously, I think a much harder look at the tree subject is required-an not just one tree surgeons report, good as it may have been.

 

K

[Rob Murf]

Surely such a tree deserves a more of an effort to retain it !! Doesnt seem much treescape about from the video.

 

But i dont know all the facts so there could be some major cause to remove it.

It is hard to get the balance between "safety"/ insurance and "grandeur"/ function issues.

Is it just a big sick dangerous messy vegetable or a beautiful shading beneficial ( insert big list of the benefits of trees) living creature.

 

Thats why I find "tree reporting " is really not that easy!!

 

As an ex hippie i lean away from the " if it moves shoot it ,if it stands still cut it down " hillbillie mentality.

 

Lets face it after it is cut down where is the future in that.

Just ask the guys who worked in the Sahara Forest.

 

RjM

[b101uk]

Having read the Beeb article, i'd like to know why remedial work and / or an exclusion zone wasn't considered. Hmmm, pondering time.

 

an exclusion zone would have to have a radius twice the height of the tree, thus an e.g. 100ft tree would need a 200ft radius exclusion zone which is 400ft diameter.

 

the exclusion zone would then need to stop people from getting in so would need to be 8ft high like you would find around a substation.

[janey]

an exclusion zone would have to have a radius twice the height of the tree, thus an e.g. 100ft tree would need a 200ft radius exclusion zone which is 400ft diameter.

 

the exclusion zone would then need to stop people from getting in so would need to be 8ft high like you would find around a substation.

 

Not entirely the most practical solution, i agree! But always worth considering, depending on the "value" of the tree. If the residents really wanted to keep the tree so much, it's an option that could be looked into further. But my experience is that once people have to give up something they like, the surrounding green in this case, they tend to suddenly not be too bothered about the tree felling after all .

[dodger]

Your point is quite obviously merited, but I feel the often over used get out clause of "if" is just too easily used and offers absolutely no deference to the place that Trees (not specifically this Lucombe) have in the wider public conscience of well being and sense of place within Landscape, which when removed, more often than not, never truly gets to be replaced by our currently non-visionary society and planners.

 

I do not profess to lay claim to the associated experience or skill of the poor isolated Consultant that either defends or attacks the reason for any Tree related berievement, (and I doth my cap to the undoubted respect that's due) but..........we must not lose sight of the black & white figures (within a population of 60 odd million people) of loss of life related to Trees compared with other far more dangerous public/hazard interations eg; swimming, walking, driving etc, etc.......

 

 

 

 

there was such a case like this in birmingham a few years back were a tree was outside a school sadly it did come done i a gale and killed to people and the tree officer is now faceing manslaughter charge, once a tree has come to the attention that it can be dangerous to the public its the man at the top of the ladder his head will role. the laws has change greatly in the last few years as people safety