"alan.holmes" wrote in message
...

"Qwight" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:17:16 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:


The owner has stated that he is more than
willing to replace it with more suitable trees. In fact he has suggested
more suitable ones to be planted AT HIS EXPENSE, note that AT HIS
EXPENSE,
if said tree is felled.

But earlier you said:

No it's not a diseased tree, belongs to the council on council land and
needs to come out of it on health and safety to life, property and limb
grounds.

So which of your statements was the lie?

What teh F*** are you telking about?

Probably the fact that one statement refers to the council owning the tree,
and the other gives the impression of a single individual owner.

Replacing a tree does not make the new one a health and safety problem!

I don't know - it might be replaced with a lupin.

--
Kathy

"mark" wrote in message
...

I am comforted by the fact we still have a 300 ft Wellingtonia, part of
the Isle of Wight Histree trail but it is nowhere near (in my opinion) as
magnificent as the Beech..


This Wellingtonia?
The exotic trees of Osborne House

Wellingtonias (Sequoiadendron giganteum) planted in the same year, one by
Prince Albert and the other by Queen Victoria, were measured during the
Botany Group's meeting at Osborne House in September. Albert planted his in
an area close to the potting shed but Victoria wanted hers to be in a place
where she could see it growing so it was planted at the edge of the lawn,
visible from her sitting room. This location was also rather more exposed to
the wind. Albert's tree has now reached a height of approximately 36m (118
ft) whereas Victoria's is about 24m (78 ft), presumably as a consequence of
its location.

http://www.iwnhas.org/NewsSeason2006.html

In article ,
mark wrote:
"OG" wrote in message
...

Given that you think your beech was 200ft high, I'm not sure what to make
of that!

The Beech was a fair bit in excess of 200ft.....The largest on the Isle of
Wight as far as we can ascertain..

If it were, it would have been the largest in the UK by a considerable
margin. Bean was unaware of any that reached even 150 feet.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The tallest tree in the UK is a The Douglas Fir in the Powys
nature reserve measured at 62.5m (205ft) - and it shares this
status with two similar trees in Scotland.
Turnstone

pedant mode
If the tree in Powys 'shares this status with two similar
trees', then it isn't 'the tallest tree in the UK'; it is one of
the three tallest trees in the UK.
/pedant mode

However it didn't retain that distinction for long.

The news item which reported the tree in Powys was on 1 July
2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4640747.stm

A further press release on 19 December 2005 records that it has
been superseded
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/NewsRele....2570D8003965E9

Looks as if someone overlooked the fact that trees continue to
grow!

Anne

"Qwight" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:17:16 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:


The owner has stated that he is more than
willing to replace it with more suitable trees. In fact he has suggested
more suitable ones to be planted AT HIS EXPENSE, note that AT HIS EXPENSE,
if said tree is felled.

But earlier you said:

No it's not a diseased tree, belongs to the council on council land and
needs to come out of it on health and safety to life, property and limb
grounds.

So which of your statements was the lie?



Neither



--
Base for a Botanic visit to the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

"alan.holmes" wrote in message
...

"Qwight" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:17:16 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:


The owner has stated that he is more than
willing to replace it with more suitable trees. In fact he has suggested
more suitable ones to be planted AT HIS EXPENSE, note that AT HIS
EXPENSE,
if said tree is felled.

But earlier you said:

No it's not a diseased tree, belongs to the council on council land and
needs to come out of it on health and safety to life, property and limb
grounds.

So which of your statements was the lie?

What teh F*** are you telking about?

Replacing a tree does not make the new one a health and safety problem!

Alan


Correct thank you.

The present tree which is becoming a danger to life, limb and property over
the ensuing years is a huge Horse Chestnut which has already been pollarded
but has grown again, as of course it would. The owner had a professional
report on this, and another tree, some 3 years ago and the HC was then
recommended for removal and replaced planting taking place. It has been
recommended that Silver Birches, further away from the HC, and possibly
underplanted where it goes alongside a public path are planted and the owner
is quite prepared to pay for this. A picture of how it would look, taken
from a copy of a photo of Silver Birches taken from Gertrude Jekyll's
garden at Munstead Wood, in 'Making Gardens' by Erica Hunningher had already
been sent to the council.

I hope that puts the picture straight for any tree huggers out there who
don't know what they are talking about but just jump on the band wagon.

Mike

"Anne Welsh Jackson" wrote in message
...
Qwight wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:17:16 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

The owner has stated that he is more than willing to replace it
with more suitable trees. In fact he has suggested more suitable
ones to be planted AT HIS EXPENSE, note that AT HIS EXPENSE,
if said tree is felled.

But earlier you said:

No it's not a diseased tree, belongs to the council on council land and
needs to come out of it on health and safety to life, property and limb
grounds.

So which of your statements was the lie?

Probably both. He makes things up as he goes along...

--
AnneJ

Anne, NEVER ever judge people by your own standards. By the looks of things
if your example of posting is anything to go on, their standards are far
above yours. Mine certainly are.

Kindest possible regards

Mike


--
Base for a Botanic visit to the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk