UK town plans to cut down cop-killing assault tree

[Irreverend IX]

"150-year-old Monkey puzzle tree facing chop because council says its needles are 'like syringes'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021517/150-year-old-Monkey-puzzle-tree-facing-chop-needles-like-syringes.html

For 150 years, it has stood in splendid serenity on the village green, harming no one and pleasing many.

Over the decades, the monkey puzzle tree at West Cross, near Swansea, became a much-loved local landmark.

But now it is facing the chop … because, in modern Britain, the needle-like points of its leaves are deemed a danger to health and safety.

More news from the nonviolent paradise of Great Britain.

[iverglas]

1. oh look, it's the Daily Mail

You folks have such discriminating taste, I'm left in awe.


Truth in the news ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/7431374.stm

A report says the 150-year-old tree's needles and fruit could be a hazard for passers-by, and its roots are damaged.

Residents deny the tree is dangerous and have collected a 200-name petition.

... The council's report by Barrell Tree Consultancy said contractors working for the council had damaged the roots, adding: "It is my view that this level of damage will have a significant adverse effect on the long term health of this tree, which is likely to result in its decline and ultimately its loss."

Mrs Crafer and other campaigners have had their own health and safety expert examine the tree, and she said he "rubbished" the council report's findings.

Drought in my city has resulted in the loss of some trees in recent years. A couple of years ago an architect explained the removal of one. The clayish soil is altered on a molecular level by drought. It cannot be restored to sustain trees. Just on an irrelevant side note.

The large maple on my grandparents' front lawn was lost when gas lines were laid, damaging the roots. The next door neighbours later removed their large maple to plant one of those ridiculous little miniature catalpas. My self-seeded catalpas are fixing to flower as we speak ...

[JackintheGreen]

2. Don't be mean.

The Daily Mail is everything the Weekly World News has always tried to be.

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

[Irreverend IX]

16. You say the Daily Mail is unreliable, but...

There's a lot of overlap between the BBC story and the Mail story. The BBC mentions that the council thinks the tree's leaves could be dangerous, and it also mentions that the council and the local community members are at odds over the tree. The "damaged roots" rationale is trumped-up, according to the townspeople. The Daily Mail quotes Mrs. Crafer as objecting to the hypodermic comparison, which suggests either that the report did compare the leaves to hypodermics or that the Mail fabricated Crafer's quote, which is a serious and legally actionable breach of journalistic ethics, at least in the US. Do you have evidence that anything in the Mail story is false?

[iverglas]

20. "Do you have evidence that anything in the Mail story is false?"

Do you have evidence that the moon is made of green cheese?

As soon as you come up with evidence for a claim you haven't made, I'll match it.

[Howzit]

3. Maybe they are scared someone could weaponize it, like this guy:

http://www.wftv.com/news/16656569/detail.html

[Thelvyn]

4. No suprise here.

Ah the crazy UK. Does this really surprise anyone? We’re talking about the place where they arrest you for having your work tools, if you say you’d use them for self-defense. Ah the crazy UK, the place where you are not allowed to defend yourself and are supposed to sit there and take your beating or killing. And remember, don’t fight back or they will let that criminal sue you for damages. They might as well start arming the criminals, just in case those crazy law-abiding citizens try to do something nuts like defending themselves with their fists. You can’t have that, those criminals have rights. Here those criminals are trying to make a decent living by breaking into people’s homes, taking their stuff, raping and beating them, and those people have the audacity to try and defend themselves? Malarkey!!! Can you say Bass Ackwards?

[iverglas]

5. how right you are

No suprise that you or pretty much anyone else here would believe the lies told by a rag like the Daily Mail. Or pretend to believe them, given as how the truth has been put in front of your face and all.

No surprise at all.


Ah the crazy UK, the place where you are not allowed to defend yourself and are supposed to sit there and take your beating or killing.

Ah, I won't say you're lying. I'll just say you've been swallowing some pretty well-rotted shit.

I can say a lot of things. But you already know what they are.

[spin]

8. Interesting info on self-defense in the UK

The concept of the defence exists both at common law and by statute. At common law the defence has existed for centuries and permits a person to use reasonable force to:

1. defend himself from attack
2. prevent an attack on another person
3. defend his property

******************
How is the "reasonableness" test assessed - objectively or subjectively?

In Owino (1996) 2 Cr App Rep 128 the accused assaulted his wife and was charged with an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. His defence was that he had used no more than reasonable force to defend himself. The trial judge directed the jury to the effect that the prosecution had to prove that the accused did not believe that he was using reasonable force. He was convicted. His appeal against conviction was on the basis that the trial judge had not stated that the test of what force was reasonable was to be subjectively assessed. The appeal was dismissed. It was held that a person may only use such force as is (objectively) reasonable in the circumstances as he (subjectively) believes them to be and is not entitled to use the degree of force which he believes to be reasonable. Thus the trial judge had been more favourable to the accused than he needed to be. This case has clarified the uncertainty which may have existed following the decision in Scarlett <1993> 4 All ER 629 where the Court of Appeal held the test to be unequivocally subjective. The judgement in Owino has made it clear that although the accused is entitled to be judged on the facts as he believed them to be (the subjective element), it is the jury which decides how much force is reasonable (the objective element). To adopt the words of the Court of Appeal, a person "may use such force as is (objectively) reasonable in the circumstances as he believes them to be".

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence

[iverglas]

9. yes ... and ...

I'm familiar with the judgment, myself.

I explained the concepts back in September 2006, for just one instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=129036&mesg_id=129049

The entire concept of self-defence has a subjective element -- the question is spelled out in Canadian law, which represents the widespread common law on the point:

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

Whether an apprehension was reasonable, and whether the belief that a person could not preserve him/herself otherwise was reasonable, will to some extent depend on the individual's circumstances. ...

An example of how the Owino test would apply would be that a young, fit person sees a skinny old person coming straight at him/her, shouting and babbling and waving his/her fists in the air. The person subjectively believes/fears that s/he is about to be assaulted. The belief is reasonable, but is based on a complete misapprehension of the situation -- in fact, there is a third person standing behind him/her with an upraised hammer, preparing to clout him/her over the head, and the person doing the fist-waving is trying to ward off the hammer wielder.

The person who sees the fist-waver advancing on him/her pulls out a handgun and shoots the fist-waver dead.

The *subjective* belief was reasonable in the circumstances. The force used was *objectively* unreasonable in the circumstances. Or so I'd find, if I were on a jury and those were the facts.

I don't know what point for discussion you see in that passage.

[spin]

10. Merely point out that...

the comment in post #4 by Thelvyn:

Ah the crazy UK, the place where you are not allowed to defend yourself and are supposed to sit there and take your beating or killing.

wasn't entirely true.

However, I find their laws on tools such as knives overly restrictive.

However, I don't live in the UK. It's not really any business of mine to criticize their laws.

[iverglas]

11. so I hoped ;) . n/t

[jody]

12. "not really any business of mine to criticize their laws"! Foreigners criticize U.S. laws all the

time on this forum.

[iverglas]

13. awwwwwwww

poor put-upon baby.

In cyberspace there are no foreigners .......

We be just one big happy human family, jody!

We foreigners care about you, just like you care about the starving millions in the world. Well, not you personally, but you know.

I must say, though, you personally do seem to care a fair bit about all us liberated Canadians and Britishers. I mean, the word "obsessed" does sometimes come to mind, if not "informed" ...

[spin]

14. True, however I chose not to....

What works in one country may be foolish in another.

For example I have a small collection of knives, almost all of which would be illegal for me in carry in the UK. For example, most of my pocket knives lock the blade in place when open. To me this a a common sense idea for any knife used as an everyday tool.

A description of British laws and how they might be enforced can be found at the BritishBlades Forum in the "ask a cop" section: (Some interesting and entertaining posts can be found here.)

http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2011

I considered joining the discussion and mentioning how superior and sensible the knife laws in the States were to the laws in the UK. After careful thought I decided not to, as I said above, "It's none of my business".

But, on the other hand, I might have made the forum much more interesting with my posts.

[jody]

15. "made the forum much more interesting"? Indubitably! n/t

[michreject]

17. For the most part, I ignore them.

They have NO say in our laws.

[slackmaster]

6. The needles aren't the biggest problem with a monkey puzzle tree

The fruiting bodies (actually cones and not true fruit) weigh about 15 pounds and stay intact when they fall. I have seen cars seriously damaged by them.

Maybe they don't produce cones in the UK, but they sure do in Southern California.

[iverglas]

7. the BBC report I cited says just that

"A report says the 150-year-old tree's needles and fruit could be a hazard for passers-by, and its roots are damaged."

[Howzit]

18. And it took this long to notice the hazard, or this the first year it is bearing fruit? n/t

[iverglas]

19. I give up; how long do you plan to take to notice

that the TREE'S ROOTS ARE DAMAGED and one side's experts believe it is beyond saving?