Sycamore gap vandalism.

[43110andyb]

After a couple of days to come to terms with what has happened my general mood hasn’t improved!
 Some people think that we’re/they are the only living things that matter and that they can just kill other living creatures plants and anything they wish, to make either a point/fun/sheer mindlessness when they want!
 The tree had as much right to live on this planet as the mindless cretins that cut it down for whatever reason they saw fit! 

From Facebook - (picture credit from source on photo).

[eastglosmog]

The tree is close up against Hadrians Wall.  The roots may be damaging the wall foundations.  I  would check out the  archeologists.

[009 micro modeller]

39 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

The tree is close up against Hadrians Wall.  The roots may be damaging the wall foundations.  I  would check out the  archeologists.

On a serious note, I did hear there was an ‘unauthorised’ replanting attempt with a sycamore sapling, but that it’s now been removed, possibly for this reason. The archaeologically sensitive nature of the site might be a bit of an obstacle to any replanting. Similarly, aren’t there now more restrictions on forestry plantations being put on archaeologically important sites than there were in the past?

[009 micro modeller]

20 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

All I can find on the Guardian web site is: "A man in his 60s has been arrested by officers investigating the felling of the world-famous Sycamore Gap tree in Northumberland, police have said."  The individual is not named (I can't turn up any mention of his name on the web site) and the only other thing it says in relation to the arrest is that he remains in police custody assisting officers with inquiries.  The Mirror is carrying a similar story to that in the Mail and the Independent.  Going solely by Google hits, The Sun seems to be all over it like a rash.

 

 

I can't see any reference to Renwick being sacked in any of the articles I've scanned.  According to the Mirror piece:

 

 

I'm not sure where you're getting a "previously established propensity for ill-advised direct action" from, unless you meant it as applying to whomsoever does turn out to have committed the deed - but as yet we still don't know what their motivations might have been, so this seems to be fairly speculative.

 

I have a feeling that this may start to get a bit Christopher Jefferies-ish (and if anyone recognises the reference they will no doubt also be aware of the financial penalties which were imposed on certain newspapers for fomenting false speculation in that case).

I did rather ‘enjoy’ (well ‘enjoy’ isn’t really the right word, but you know what I mean) this blatant attempt by the Mail to co-opt the story as an opportunity to rehash all their favourite rants about the National Trust, none of which are hugely relevant to the Sycamore Gap case (it starts with ‘the Trust has come under fire in recent years’): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12577935/Was-Sycamore-Gap-tree-cut-grudge-against-National-Trust.html

 

Are we sure it’s not the Mail itself that has a grudge against the NT? Methinks they doth protest too much, etc. etc.

Edited October 2, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[Mad McCann]

Given the symbolic nature of this tree, it gives rise to the question; was this an act of symbolism itself?

And if so, what is the meaning of it?

It may just be that Occam's razor provides the most likely answer, but in a country that has symbolism in its DNA, one can never be fully confident.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Well I put in my votes for the National Trust AGM last week before the tree was felled. Neither the tree felling nor the Daily Mail have made me want to change my choices.

 

I dislike it that there seems to be this political crusade against the National Trust. I also dislike one of the measures the National Trust has put in place in an attempt to counter this, and have voted accordingly.

 

I'd encourage members of the National Trust to vote. There's plenty of information in the voting pack, and more available online, to help you decide who and what to vote for.

[The Johnster]

17 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Similarly, aren’t there now more restrictions on forestry plantations being put on archaeologically important sites than there were in the past?

 

That's because the archaeologically important sites weren't important in the past, so they didn't need forestry restrictions (although the Romans probably cut all the trees they could  down on the Pict side of the wall to deny the enemy cover and provide a killing field for themselves).

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

 

That's because the archaeologically important sites weren't important in the past, so they didn't need forestry restrictions (although the Romans probably cut all the trees they could  down on the Pict side of the wall to deny the enemy cover and provide a killing field for themselves).

I was thinking more of the modern conifer plantations and similar. When these first started to be planted they were sometimes put on the sites of deserted medieval villages etc., but in some cases the roots (or the ground preparation beforehand) have damaged the archaeological stuff (although in some cases they’ve actually helped to protect it). There’s a bit here but I seem to remember when I read about this before (in an academic archaeology article) there was some legislation around this: https://cdn.forestresearch.gov.uk/2022/02/fr_archaelogical_review.pdf

 

The unofficially planted sycamore sapling was a nice idea but, as a comment I saw on one of the articles about it said, it isn’t usually a good idea to dig a hole in a World Heritage Site: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66977582?fbclid=IwAR051hGMi3nfvUX_I-PL2Ht4AIFQ08zsiMUEuDykjCfjV4ziv8Q3Vz-AihU

 

Looking at the picture of the sapling though, I wonder if he could have planted it just a little further down the hill and away from the wall and avoided that issue.