alt Hacker NewsThe Sycamore Gap tree was only about 150 years old. Sure it was striking given the position, but the outrage over it seems to be somewhat overexagerated.
Compare far less outrage when a restaurant chain chopped down a 500 year old tree. Where are the nationwide discussions about whether the CEO or branch manager (heh) or whatever should be going to prison for 5 years or 10 years.
Replies
I think the difference in outcry is because we know exactly who cut the 500 year old Enfield tree down.
These's no mystery, it was Toby Carvery owners Mitchells & Butlers plc.
It's also well known that they are now facing legal action because of this, so currently it seems that some kind of justice may be served.
That wasn't the case for Sycamore Gap. When that first happened it was a mystery who had committed a senseless act of vandlim and if they would get away with it.
The discussion of whether Phil Urban, Mitchells & Butlers CEO, should go to prison or not will happen when the case goes to trial (...but we all know he won't).
That's a press problem but, without knowing the details, I think that it's reasonable to look into whether we should press criminal charges.
You mean the tree cut down in or next to the Tottenham Hotspur training ground, or proposed development (I forget).
Also, the tree cut down by the restaurant chain, that's part owned by... one of the owners of Tottenham Hotspur FC.
Also the same club that couldn't redevelop their stadium until the scrap yard opposite vacated, which they refused to do. Then it 'mysteriously' burnt down.
Also, also, I don't subscribe to conspiracy, and I think these are just unfortunate random occurences. Million to one events happen 9 times out of 10.
Outrage is an emotion. The Sycamore Gap Tree was very famous, symbolic and a landmark, and thus its felling triggered a big emotional response even if arguably the felling of a 500 year old oak by that Toby Carvery restaurant is in a way "worse", indeed.
> Sure it was striking given the position
That's the clue to the outrage. It was well known and enjoyed by the general public, and a pair of morons decided they were going to ruin it for everyone, for no clear reason.
> Compare far less outrage when a restaurant chain chopped down a 500 year old tree.
It's a crime, hopefully it gets prosecuted, but it wasn't as iconic.
I don't think there's a mystery here.
It’s also a non-native species to the U.K.!
And Sycamore is an invasive non-native species that gets actively removed from ancient forest as a weed.
> but the outrage over it seems to be somewhat overexagerated
It is a living thing. It should not be destroyed on a lark. Weather it is 10 year old or 150.
> Compare far less outrage when a restaurant chain chopped down a 500 year old tree.
This is directly attributable to succesfull public relationship management. Right away the company in question said that they got the advice from experts that the tree was a danger and needed to be removed. That takes the wind out of the outrage.
You might say that is not true. You might say tree surgeons will write whatever you want in their report. You might say that they should have informed the council. And you might be all true on those, i don’t know. What i know is that it becomes murky and that disarms the outrage.
“Unknowns killed a 150 year old living being for no reason whatsoever” is an outrage with no mitigations. “Wisdom of tree surgeons’ advice to pub is in dispute” is a head scratcher not an outrage. “Pub or their contractors fails to file necessary paperwork with Council before safety remediation work commences” is not an outrage but a yawn fest. “Property boundary dispute between Council and Pub” puts me right to sleep.