Amelanchier

A very welcome change indeed!

While I might be inclined to support your cause Tony, I tend to harden my stance when people play the guilt game. I have no reason to doubt that others do to - so you might find it counterproductive to infer that anyone not immediately jumping on your latest bandwagon is against saving trees! The other thing that lessens my interest is that you seem proudly ignorant about the specifics of the threat! To my mind, it is the threat that determines whether I consider that the investment of my support is worthwhile. It's hard to judge whether a cause is credible if the person asking for your support uses the words "blah blah" in their description of its seriousness. Finally, and this is the critical matter; in addition to checking that the cause is relevant to your target audience , you should be sure that your target audience is relavant to your cause. This appears to be an LDF consultation (as identified by HCR above) and as I am not a resident of Hastings, I would be surprised if my opinion as a resident of Norfolk carries much weight. The campaign website seems to suggest that they will (quite reasonably IMO) use the double edged sword of localism in their fight... "The Friends of Speckled Wood believes this is not democratic and as the government believes in Localism, the choice should be with the people from the local area." So that's neither Huck nor I is it?

I'm interested in the idea that the legal action taken is disproportionate because the guy could only have hurt himself... How much does a couple of paramedics, ambulance, a casualty team and hospital services cost if things go wrong? I have no idea but I doubt its free - there is a cost to society for his increased risk taking.

Wilfully indeed for some offences but not all. Some are strict liability (i.e., no mens rea) - such as felling under s210 and pruning under s211). This is not common law, its statute and if words implying mens rea are included in some sections and left out of others in the legislation it is read that this was the intention of the legislators. Hence you can be criminally guilty without the intent to be so; therefore no need for the prosecution to demonstrate your 'guilty mind'. As I say - cut a protected tree down (without consent or exemption) and you have committed an offence. This has been the case since the inception of TPOs and has changed little from that time. In any case, the bloke in the wig ultimately decides. I certainly wouldn't advise my clients that I had found a loophole that allowed them to knock protected trees over - I would say that yours could be on some wafer thin ice if they do.

Actually its a little more complicated than that. If you are a member of a professional organisation you are typcally also obliged to follow their code of ethics - this normally includes an expectation that you will not bring your organisation into disrepute. Also, you certainly will find lawyers that turn clients down. So the trees weren't protected then? I doubt they were. Not all LPAs did ignore Govt. advice and in any case the recent changes are far more wide ranging than just a moratorium for old orders. The position and standing of the TO depends on the structure of the LPA.

So you extrapolated this from your single experience of not being prosecuted? s210 of the TCPA seems clear enough to me; If any person, in contravention of a tree preservation order— . (a)cuts down, uproots or wilfully destroys a tree, or . (b)wilfully damages, tops or lops a tree in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it, . he shall be guilty of an offence. If you cut the tree down and it is protected - you are guilty of an offence. How your LPA handles it is quite another matter altogether...

Zombie thread. Anyway, the 2012 regs now supersede the historic mish mash - the upshot being that if a TPO is not confirmed after six months it can never be confirmed; a new order must be served. I'd be interested to hear about the conflict with human rights; mainly because planning tends to trump human rights at every turn.

I agree with Giles.

Got any pictures of the whole tree?

Oh I also understand that Phellinus is in the phylogenetic firing line too. 'Tis the era of the splitters.

I think its a new genus David; Inonotus still exists in many other international taxonomic classifications such as http://eol.org/pages/6758632/names To avoid confusion (and misguided corrections) we will be using; Psuedoinonotus dryadeus (syn. Inonotus dryadeus) Until it changes again that is...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZYMnmHgIks]The Fast Show - Billy Bleach -1- Fruit machines - YouTube[/ame]

But if it is the latter then it is an admission of guilt to a criminal offence... If the second offence was in the same county court jurisidiction then the OP could have been before the bench on the second count with a strong case against his favour. Round here all the LPAs share info on those that have accepted formal cautions with the express intent of making the second case count if the first didn't quite make it.

The BS? You mean the new regs right? No reclassification - just the removal of a oft misused / misunderstood term. You don't need a state between alive and dead; by definition if you are not dead you are alive and vice versa. The regs simply assert the fairly sensible position that a tree is alive until it is dead!

That would be the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead. That scene incidentally identifies the key pitfalls of untrained operators and a failure to engage the chainbrake... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_FFTZ7_D4M]Dawn of the Dead Chainsaw - YouTube[/ame]

It certainly is their problem. Though if you do withdraw your notification it would seem reasonable to invoice them for providing your services - say £50 admin fee?

Nope. The order supersedes the CA protection by making the defence that six weeks had elapsed since notifying redundant - since you now need to make an application to achieve the desired goal. Ideally, the LPA would explain this and also make it clear that they do not give consent to fell (the other defence under s.211) but few do.

On a related matter; a colleague did a hazard assessment the other day and felt obliged to record in the schedule that his inspection of several of the main stems of the subject trees was impeded by guerilla knitting...

This years format looks a lot less formal - including a BBQ with an Aussie legend showing footage of some of the most severely technical takedowns ever committed to film! Anyone who has seen the epic Tahune Euc dismantle isn't likely to have forgotten it; but just in case... Graeme's company - Sherbrooke Tree Service AA Arb Conference Details [ame] [/ame]

Welcome to the forum. You better make your next post a lot less spammy or you won't get a third...

Just seen this. For the record, that was not your edit Tony, it was Steves. It even says so underneath. It was edited because of a breach of the forum rules not because you wanted it edited! Lets be clear, having your name in the title does not give anyone any special privileges.

I don't think those who were "concerned and informed" were being accused. Also, at least from my point of view, I was speaking hypothetically - I didn't actually expect anyone (not even Tony) to justify themselves!

I'd rather let a hated vegetarian homosexual political scientist explain it himself. Bjorn Lomborg sets global priorities | Video on TED.com

You seem to have a different reading of his post than I do. I read it to be an acknowledgement of the modern condition - we blame society for our failings. As my man Hobbes said a few years back "Competition of praise inclineth to a reverence of antiquity. For men contend with the living, not with the dead." How is that not relevant to the debate? Who is to say whether Mr S. Grinder has not prolifically read and rehearsed the arguements? Incidentally, I was tempted to rehearse the attack the arguement principle at the start of this post when one poster called another a fool for not sharing his opinion... I concur. I find the Lombergian view compelling - money is more useful when spent on adaption than on attempting prevention.

Ha! One thing is for certain, the worried well always want somebody else to do something about their problems. It's rare to hear someone lobby about their cause by explaining what they themselves need to do. Perhaps someone could give it a go here?