That fucking tree

[FlirtsWithRhinos]

Anyone else pissed off that UK media and public seem more aghast about a 16 year old boy killing a tree than a 17 year old boy killing a girl?

The data shows otherwise with 49 men killed by women in 2022 vs 178 women killed by men. A further 300 men were also killed by men.

I have two thoughts on this violence by men and boys

I heard the safer neighbourhood lead , a woman on the radio the day of the stabbing and she was saying we need to educate girls on safety

I thought hang a minute.......how about educating boys not to go around committing acts of violence against others full stop and teaching them not to carry weapons which statistically are more likely to get them stabbed than stab someone

And stop search powers - police officers I know are too worried about being labelled racist even if the demographic of the area they police is predominantly black, or Asian , or Eastern European. It stands to reason statistically that if you work an area with more ethnic minorities that if crime is to be tackled it shouldn't matter what ethnicity the public are - but it it does matter and there are specific demographic groups that are more likely to carry knives for instance , within those communities. It is very very easy to make a complaint about a police,officer which takes months to investigate, prevents them going for other roles or promotions, and results in being removed from frontline duties while investigating thereby putting more pressure on their already overstretched colleagues. Even if the complaint is spurious or unfounded . I've been there and it's not pleasant. Bodyworn cameras are helpful in this respect now as they can show instantly if the. Or plaint is justified or not. But stop search powers are a minefield even if carried out technically textbook perfectly .

and teaching them not to carry weapons which statistically are more likely to get them stabbed than stab someone

I agree that it's wrong that you shouldn't jump to "teaching girls" here, as adults should be responsible for providing safety, as in safe streets, and that should be the main focus.

I once complained about an advert that was making that sort of claim about carrying knives. I asked the organisation behind it and they admitted it was anecdotal.

So OK I thought, you can't put potentially dangerous misinformation (either false or possibly false without sufficient justification) in an advert, just because you are encouraging lawful behaviour.

My complaint wasn't upheld, and I still think it's an injustice!

But who is teaching boys to carry weapons?

I'd hazard a guess at other boys/men

That tree was headline news on Liechtenstein's buses the other day. Yes, really!

They're going to be even more pissed off when they realise you cannot commit criminal damage on a wild plant 🤣

Not true

Of course you can. The tree is the property of the land owner.

Haven't they arrested a 60 year old for the tree now, anyway?

No, it's a wild plant. It will fall under the WCA 1981. The National Trust own the land but they didn't intentionally plant the tree, it's a wild plant.

But I wouldn't expect the police to know that.

You're wrong . I can and will dig my notes out on the four f s if you like . A tree is property

Flora , fauna and another two from memory

All subject property in law . But I'm wouldn't expect a civvy to know that .

You're confusing land law with criminal law there.

It falls under criminal law . Hence why arrests were made

Yes, but your flora, fauna, fixtures and fittings apply to who owns it. A wild plant can grow on private land and is subject to a different offence. You cannot commit criminal damage on a wild plant.

To be a wild plant it simply needs to grow "as nature intended it."

If the landowner had planted the tree deliberately, it would be a different story. But we're talking about a 300 year old tree whose origin is unknown.

Nope .
It depends on whether the case would be criminal
Damage or theft

The four fs are flowers fruit
Foliage or fungi

I would however expect the arrests to have been for criminal
Damage . No one owns a statue - or a national
Monument. If they're defaced or damaged it would still be criminal damage.

Trees are property.

And it doesn't matter WHO planted it.

Wild
Flowers are regarded as property - they self seed . No one planted them.

If picked (depending on the intent of the picker) they are regarded as property.

Fixtures and fittings . No .

Flowers
Fauna
Foliage
Fungi

All regarded as property in law . Sorry but you are Incorrect.

And by your logic

You buy a house with a beautiful tree in the garden

Someone comes and cuts it down

You think you'd have no recourse because you didn't plant it ?

Trees belong to the owner of the land. It is completely and utterly irrelevant who planted them. The tree was the property of the National Trust.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act which you have failed to understand is environmental legislation to give additional protection for flora and fauna and to protect the environment.

Makes me laugh when some smug schmuck turns up to tell us all the police don't know anything about the laws they uphold . While knowing absolutely zero apart from what they googled . Incorrectly.

The difference is, I can comprehend the tenant/landlord dispute that seems to have led to someone cutting down the tree. It's still criminal and sad - but comprehensible.

Stabbing a girl multiple times in the neck over a teddy bear and few pairs of socks - incomprehensible.

The wall itself has also been damaged by the tree felling .