The ArgusSeven Dials elm activists in celebration event after Brighton and Hove City Council U-turn (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Seven Dials elm activists in celebration event after Brighton and Hove City Council U-turn

The Argus: Seven Dials elm activists in celebration event after Brighton and Hove City Council U-turn Seven Dials elm activists in celebration event after Brighton and Hove City Council U-turn

Activists who campaigned to save an elm tree held a celebration event at the weekend.

The protesters saved the tree from the chop as part of the Seven Dials roundabout development.

They officially brought their campaign to an end on Saturday with songs, poems and talks.

Tom Druitt, who camped out in the tree earlier this year, scaled it once more to remove the “Thank You” banner.

It was set to be chopped down as part of the roundabout improvements but plans were altered following public pressure.

The U-turn cost Brighton and Hove City Council £20,000.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:18pm Mon 1 Jul 13

kipper12 says...

a celebration after a tree was saved ??... a £20,000 bill for the council .???

that's it council , get your priorities right.......

AND NEXT TO NOTHING SPENT ON ARM FORCES DAY !!!!

but then again our troops didnt fight a war to save a tree eh ??
a celebration after a tree was saved ??... a £20,000 bill for the council .??? that's it council , get your priorities right....... AND NEXT TO NOTHING SPENT ON ARM FORCES DAY !!!! but then again our troops didnt fight a war to save a tree eh ?? kipper12
  • Score: -2

2:05pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Vicente_1 says...

A story about morons then... you decide whether im talking about the council or the people having a tree party!
A story about morons then... you decide whether im talking about the council or the people having a tree party! Vicente_1
  • Score: -2

2:12pm Mon 1 Jul 13

whereisthe...? says...

Absolutely disgusting - Guarantee was done by both Liberals and Greens..

ALL THAT TIME, MONEY AND ENERGY *WASTED* could have been used for something that MATTERS!!

HOW many homeless people could have been saved for example with all the effort, time and money used?!


These self important arrogant ivory towered morons should be ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED with themselves. People like this are WHY this awful Government got in and are STILL in power -


- because apathetic, moronic, pompous morons like this lot are busy obsessing over a friggin' TREE rather than what matters!!
Absolutely disgusting - Guarantee was done by both Liberals and Greens.. ALL THAT TIME, MONEY AND ENERGY *WASTED* could have been used for something that MATTERS!! HOW many homeless people could have been saved for example with all the effort, time and money used?! These self important arrogant ivory towered morons should be ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED with themselves. People like this are WHY this awful Government got in and are STILL in power - - because apathetic, moronic, pompous morons like this lot are busy obsessing over a friggin' TREE rather than what matters!! whereisthe...?
  • Score: -2

2:47pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Nick Brighton says...

whereisthe...? wrote:
Absolutely disgusting - Guarantee was done by both Liberals and Greens..

ALL THAT TIME, MONEY AND ENERGY *WASTED* could have been used for something that MATTERS!!

HOW many homeless people could have been saved for example with all the effort, time and money used?!


These self important arrogant ivory towered morons should be ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED with themselves. People like this are WHY this awful Government got in and are STILL in power -


- because apathetic, moronic, pompous morons like this lot are busy obsessing over a friggin' TREE rather than what matters!!
What DOES matter?
[quote][p][bold]whereisthe...?[/bold] wrote: Absolutely disgusting - Guarantee was done by both Liberals and Greens.. ALL THAT TIME, MONEY AND ENERGY *WASTED* could have been used for something that MATTERS!! HOW many homeless people could have been saved for example with all the effort, time and money used?! These self important arrogant ivory towered morons should be ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED with themselves. People like this are WHY this awful Government got in and are STILL in power - - because apathetic, moronic, pompous morons like this lot are busy obsessing over a friggin' TREE rather than what matters!![/p][/quote]What DOES matter? Nick Brighton
  • Score: 1

2:52pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Dealing with idiots says...

Ho Ho. Tom who owns the Big Lemon bus company was one of the activists who slept in the tree. Tree is saved but did it have more to do with the fact that the lovely Tom is engaged to councillor Alex ( the green Kitcat killer ) Phillips? Nepotism? Surely not.
They can save a tree but could not give a stuff about the businesses in the city. 5/5/15 one day closer.
Ho Ho. Tom who owns the Big Lemon bus company was one of the activists who slept in the tree. Tree is saved but did it have more to do with the fact that the lovely Tom is engaged to councillor Alex ( the green Kitcat killer ) Phillips? Nepotism? Surely not. They can save a tree but could not give a stuff about the businesses in the city. 5/5/15 one day closer. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: -1

3:32pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Martha Gunn says...

But didn't Mrs Diesel Druitt vote to cut the tree down?
But didn't Mrs Diesel Druitt vote to cut the tree down? Martha Gunn
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Dealing with idiots says...

Soon put the bus into reverse when she thought there might be a few votes in it. Bit like when she played the blond card after failing to oust Kitcat. Oo wittle me I was so naive. I'm so vewy vewy sowee that nasty Phlem man made me do it. Don't fall for it now or at the eagerly awaited election in 2015.
Soon put the bus into reverse when she thought there might be a few votes in it. Bit like when she played the blond card after failing to oust Kitcat. Oo wittle me I was so naive. I'm so vewy vewy sowee that nasty Phlem man made me do it. Don't fall for it now or at the eagerly awaited election in 2015. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Hoarder12345444 says...

Yeah well done!! Real progress. What a bunch of hippie freaks. GET A LIFE.
Yeah well done!! Real progress. What a bunch of hippie freaks. GET A LIFE. Hoarder12345444
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Mon 1 Jul 13

rolivan says...

What really pees me off is that I have lived in different countries around the World and have always integrated into their way of life.It would seem that the City has been over run by thosands of interlopers who arrive and want to change everything for their benefit.That was a perfectly functional roundabout before it was reduced in size. Vehicles didn't have a free for all.
What really pees me off is that I have lived in different countries around the World and have always integrated into their way of life.It would seem that the City has been over run by thosands of interlopers who arrive and want to change everything for their benefit.That was a perfectly functional roundabout before it was reduced in size. Vehicles didn't have a free for all. rolivan
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Zorniza says...

Hei,
It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree.

Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to.

It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action.

The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves.

I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.
Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many. Zorniza
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Dealing with idiots says...

Zorniza wrote:
Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.
Has HJarrs got a new name or an equally deluded friend to play with?
[quote][p][bold]Zorniza[/bold] wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.[/p][/quote]Has HJarrs got a new name or an equally deluded friend to play with? Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Take it Personally says...

Zorniza wrote:
Hei,
It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree.

Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to.

It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action.

The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves.

I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.
Well said and thank you!
[quote][p][bold]Zorniza[/bold] wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.[/p][/quote]Well said and thank you! Take it Personally
  • Score: 0

7:48pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Dealing with idiots says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Zorniza wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.
Well said and thank you!
Another leftwing fantasist believing all the greenwash that is swilling around. Lovely tree but there are bigger issues.
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zorniza[/bold] wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.[/p][/quote]Well said and thank you![/p][/quote]Another leftwing fantasist believing all the greenwash that is swilling around. Lovely tree but there are bigger issues. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Take it Personally says...

Dealing with idiots wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Zorniza wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.
Well said and thank you!
Another leftwing fantasist believing all the greenwash that is swilling around. Lovely tree but there are bigger issues.
Hmmm another angry right-wing small brained person. You log-in name should be "looking in the mirror"
[quote][p][bold]Dealing with idiots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zorniza[/bold] wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.[/p][/quote]Well said and thank you![/p][/quote]Another leftwing fantasist believing all the greenwash that is swilling around. Lovely tree but there are bigger issues.[/p][/quote]Hmmm another angry right-wing small brained person. You log-in name should be "looking in the mirror" Take it Personally
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Mon 1 Jul 13

rolivan says...

Zorniza wrote:
Hei,
It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree.

Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to.

It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action.

The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves.

I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.
So changing the plans to accommadate the Tree didn't bring about extra cost even though the new detailed drawings would have to conform with many planning issues.Maybe that is why the Contractors broke a pipe?So even that would have a cost.
[quote][p][bold]Zorniza[/bold] wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.[/p][/quote]So changing the plans to accommadate the Tree didn't bring about extra cost even though the new detailed drawings would have to conform with many planning issues.Maybe that is why the Contractors broke a pipe?So even that would have a cost. rolivan
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Mon 1 Jul 13

Dealing with idiots says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Dealing with idiots wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Zorniza wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.
Well said and thank you!
Another leftwing fantasist believing all the greenwash that is swilling around. Lovely tree but there are bigger issues.
Hmmm another angry right-wing small brained person. You log-in name should be "looking in the mirror"
Not right wing or small brained darling but in touch with reality unlike you and your wooly green mates who will soon be dumped into the bin of political oblivion. 5/5/15 one day closer.
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dealing with idiots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zorniza[/bold] wrote: Hei, It is a pity that the Argus did not investigate the 20K claim but instead, for the second time repeated the council's press-release from April - it was pure mis-information and the only attempt to politicise this campaign. But the tree was saved at NO cost to the community as also stated at the transport committe meeting in the council at the end of April - the meeting that approved the alternative pavement design around the tree. Contrary to what people are trying to make out in the comments here, the campaign was totally peaceful and totally non-political. And to repeat it did not cost £20K or any K. Activists gave two months of their own unpaid time, including Tom Druitt, who is a respectable local businessman and could hardly be held to account for what his partner rightly or wrongly is up to. It is more appropriate to reflect as to why a tree should have to be saved through such huge effort. It is easy to destroy but harder to create value in the city. In the absence of an official tree policy, there are few democratic options left but a protest and in this case direct action. The democratic process as we all know, is open to everyone willing to put in the time and lobby vigorously- including all those who wish to see social change. Even though some do not value and respect the result of this campaign, moaning about other issues is inappropriate on this page and hardly earns the respect your issue deserves. I suggest that if you have serious concerns, you get organised and get going. You could start by writing about your issues to this paper and getting them published as a news item. There are many, many unresolved issues, but a living tree is hardly controversial. It just is. And so beautiful to so many.[/p][/quote]Well said and thank you![/p][/quote]Another leftwing fantasist believing all the greenwash that is swilling around. Lovely tree but there are bigger issues.[/p][/quote]Hmmm another angry right-wing small brained person. You log-in name should be "looking in the mirror"[/p][/quote]Not right wing or small brained darling but in touch with reality unlike you and your wooly green mates who will soon be dumped into the bin of political oblivion. 5/5/15 one day closer. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 0

10:25am Tue 2 Jul 13

billy goat-gruff says...

People obviously have their own personal priorities as to where council tax etc is spent, but I pity those who don't love a magnificent tree, especially a surviving elm? I'm reminded of the Joni Mitchell song Big yellow taxi: Don't it always seem to go/ That you don't know what you've got til its gone/ They paved paradise
/ And put up a parking lot/ They took all the trees/ And put 'em in a tree museum...
People obviously have their own personal priorities as to where council tax etc is spent, but I pity those who don't love a magnificent tree, especially a surviving elm? I'm reminded of the Joni Mitchell song Big yellow taxi: Don't it always seem to go/ That you don't know what you've got til its gone/ They paved paradise / And put up a parking lot/ They took all the trees/ And put 'em in a tree museum... billy goat-gruff
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree