Tuesday, March 10, 2015

It's Not Your FuckingTree

Why can't the property owner not get that moron trespassed.

What part of privacy rights in law escapes the moron up the tree.

Recently a fatality occurred in Tasmania when a venerable old Bluegum crashed and how old it was is never mentioned.

The owners complied with the current law to cut the tree down.

Just fumigate the bloody tree in case there are other pests say fruitflies in the tree and when he falls out on his ropes deal to him as the company owner in Hawkes Bay was dealt to for invading the privacy of the cakemaker, ex employee with a penchant for making rude comments on facebook.


Noel said...

If I had a site with a major tree that old I would be pushing the architect to include it in the plan.

I guess there will be more cases in the future now that the Act has been so diluted.

Psycho Milt said...

Actually it is our fucking tree. Owning a property doesn't make you sovereign ruler of an independent state - the property remains part of NZ and the rest of the country gets a say in what you can and can't do with it.

Much and all as right-wingers would love the right to injure or kill people for the crime of trespass, you don't have that right and won't be given it.

Allen said...

Well, Psycho Milt, if in fact you, as well as the rest of us own the tree. Then those of you who wish for the tree to be saved, should front up and pay the owner of the property so he can purchase a similar property without a tree problem. Then you will be able to look at and look after said tree at your leasure.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I'm inclined to side with Noel here.

Any developer who decides to fell a 500 year old Kauri to make way for some crummy piece of bricks and mortar could be described charitably as insentive and realistically as an extremely dumb bastard.

gravedodger said...

No Milt all you own is a very weak legal interest in the tree on private land based on a possible historical value and an even weaker amenity value based on recent legal garbage.

My assessment of the tree based on published images and its size has it at around 150 to a max of 200 years old, they can resemble a musterer's stick at 50yo when growing under a dense canopy. This tree is certainly nothing like that in its situation.

The property owner had a consent.
The trespasser was acting outside the law'
Should you see the trespasser as having rights then may I suggest your respect and acceptance of the law are somewhat nefarious and much weakened and I hope you never need its protection when someone tramples on your rights.

Anonymous said...

Very pleased to see the kauri will not be chopped down. tree like that should be treated with the respect that it deserves.

Shane Ponting said...

Really hoping the tree succumbs to a mysterious illness and dies any ways.

That any tree can trump property rights is really quite absurd.