> but the outrage over it seems to be somewhat overexagerated It is a living thing. It should not be destroyed on a lark. Weather it is 10 year old or 150. >

> but the outrage over it seems to be somewhat overexagerated It is a living thing. It should not be destroyed on a lark. Weather it is 10 year old or 150. > Compare far less outrage when a restaurant chain chopped down a 500 year old tree. This is directly attributable to succesfull public relationship management. Right away the company in question said that they got the advice from experts that the tree was a danger and needed to be removed. That takes the wind out of the outrage. You might say that is not true. You might say tree surgeons will write whatever you want in their report. You might say that they should have informed the council. And you might be all true on those, i don’t know. What i know is that it becomes murky and that disarms the outrage. “Unknowns killed a 150 year old living being for no reason whatsoever” is an outrage with no mitigations. “Wisdom of tree surgeons’ advice to pub is in dispute” is a head scratcher not an outrage. “Pub or their contractors fails to file necessary paperwork with Council before safety remediation work commences” is not an outrage but a yawn fest. “Property boundary dispute between Council and Pub” puts me right to sleep.