Sycamore Gap Tree

F1.2 said:
Are we the public allowed to know who they are ? or are they being protected.
Click to expand...
Given the publicity around this case, what chance is there of a fair trial if they’re named pre trial.

Reading recent comments I genuinely despair of the levels of comprehension of how our justice system should and does work.

Edit
It appears I was reacting to an inaccurate post, they have been named and I was guessing at a reason they may not have been.
 
Last edited:
I fail to see how being named will affect the trial the jury listen to the evidence presented linking them to the act, and it would be on that basis a conviction would be obtained.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm not joking, I fail to understand the relevance of your being a member and I cannot be responsible for your comprehension or otherwise of my English.

While all vandalism is to be deplored, it's a Sycamore. If they hadn't dug out the root, it would have grown back in a few years.
Click to expand...
One of only a handful of posts by Andrew I’ve ever agreed with.

We need some perspective here; it’s vandalism, they’re off to magistrates court, highly unlikely to see the inside of a crown court, so you can all look up what the sentence is likely to be.

Meanwhile every week two women are killed by partner or ex partner, and for ‘less serious’ offences like rape, the time it takes to get to court means most cases will fail along the way. Witness evidence that’s strong has diminished to nothing 3 years later by the time it gets to court.

For all of you who’ve got creative ideas about how this case should be run, I suggest a read of the secret barrister books.
 
artyman said:
I fail to see how being named will affect the trial the jury listen to the evidence presented linking them to the act, and it would be on that basis a conviction would be obtained.
Click to expand...
There’ll be no jury.
And they have been named
 
Nod said:
That's what I though. It's Andrew F who said they'd dug it up.
Click to expand...
Mea culpa.

I meant to write "haven't".
 
Give it a few years and they'll be ripping the stump out because the roots are causing damage to the wall...
 
It has sprouted 3 new shoots already.
 
About 25 years ago, I felled a cherry tree for some friends of Mum and Dad. They told me to leave the logs where they were once I'd chopped them down to 10" or so in length. By the time they got around to dealing with them a year or so later, several of them had taken root!
 
There are eight sycamores behind my house if they need a mature replacement.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I just read that on the BBC website. There’s something wrong with many people on this planet!
 
Norkie said:
There’s something wrong with many people on this planet!
Click to expand...
Indeed.

However, I'm not sure that cutting down a tree is so important, next to all the bad things that happen to people in this allegedly "green and pleasant land".
 
Looking at a few pictures and videos of the oak in Enfield, at least one of the main trunks looks decidedly dodgy and hollow. In some of the shots, there are 2 or 3 large fallen branches under its canopy too.
 
Nod said:
Looking at a few pictures and videos of the oak in Enfield, at least one of the main trunks looks decidedly dodgy and hollow. In some of the shots, there are 2 or 3 large fallen branches under its canopy too.
Click to expand...
If I understood correctly, it is/was a "notable tree" (or whatever the expression is?) and oddly only one cut as shown does it now have TPO on it.

So, unless it had a TPO in place at the time of its cutting.......there was nothing in place to stop them doing it!

Having said that, we get our trees pollarded every 2-3 years and the agreement asks us if the trees are covered by a TPO, they aren't. Therefore, with such a tree like that ancient Oak where it's situation may have been uncertain who enquired about it's status and who, if anyone would be deemed negligent in law for the damage done???

It was my understanding that a TPO in & of itself will not stop tree surgery if it's shown to be diseased? But permission needs to be obtained.
 
So it has now come out that it was chopped down for "health and safety" reasons by a pub adjacent to the park.... but it was not actually on their property.... Surely they should have asked permission from the council before taking action as it was not on their land....
 
Two people responsible just sentenced to 4 years & 3 months each!
 
Wow. 4 years for chopping down a tree.
I expected a custodial sentence but not that long.
 
Peter123 said:
Wow. 4 years for chopping down a tree.
I expected a custodial sentence but not that long.
Click to expand...
Criminal damage to a monument too.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm all for long sentences when appropriate but that's longer than I've seen reported sentences for violent crime against innocent victims. :(
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Well, I'm all for long sentences when appropriate but that's longer than I've seen reported sentences for violent crime against innocent victims. :(
Click to expand...
Sentences are also used as a deterrent. These people seemed to have little motive other than to annoy the public. We should be worried about other important monuments etc. so perhaps special recognition and protection of these may in future demand longer sentences. How would you react to similar vandals stealing a bulldozer and demolishing Stonehenge?

Dave
 
I know what should be cut off both of them. as a life long punishment. They may have a bit of trouble going to the toilet
 
Peter123 said:
Wow. 4 years for chopping down a tree.
I expected a custodial sentence but not that long.
Click to expand...
Will it be 4 years? or will they get time off for good behaviour?
They may even get out earlier when the government do the latest clear out of criminals.
 
F1.2 said:
Will it be 4 years? or will they get time off for good behaviour?
They may even get out earlier when the government do the latest clear out of criminals.
Click to expand...
Will serve no more than 40% of the sentence inside according to the judge.
 
Peter123 said:
I don’t think you can compare a tree, which can be re-grown, to Stonehenge.
Click to expand...


Stonehenge was redeveloped several times and has been "restored" too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top