I didn't know who owned the land or tree, now I do, now I'm happy it's been cut down as I don't like the National TrustNordboy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 3:10 pmAs the tree was on National Trust land, my guess is that they are the owners? Wouldn't you say that things that grow on your land are owned by you? Or would you be happy for people to come to your property and chop any plants or trees down? Or even damage your property?Le_Fromage_Grande wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 3:04 pmWho's stolen it, the tree was still there, who did the tree belong to, whose land was it on, why is it a tourist attraction, if it's a tourist attraction would the land owner be entitled to charge for access to the tree, couldn't people visit a more interesting tree?Dodgy69 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:29 pm I don't think it matters that it is a tree, its a tourist attraction. A statue, monument or post box, its been pinched, but the stump will attract more tourist probably, with all the publicity its getting.
May backfire on whoever was being it.
Trees don't matter anymore, fast trains matter.
The National Trust are a charity, they potentially could charge for access, but they ask for donations or subscriptions instead as they would like everyone to be able to enjoy the area, not just entitled little shits with a chainsaw.
I love how you know it was "an entitled little shit" that chopped the tree down, I don't know who it was, but it's a lovely neat cut, someone knew what they were doing.