EDOldie

No one is saying that there shouldn't be trees in East Dulwich. It's a question of where they are sited and what sorts of trees are appropriate to the location. Trees can add to property value but they can detract as well and I feel this should not be the argument. We should be having an intelligent rational discussion about whether one size fits all, ie trees grow where they are and no thought is given to planting other than there is a space lets stick a tree there regardless of context to building or streetscape. Or, planned planting and, dare I say it, planned removal to suit local people. Sadly in Southwark the former option appears preferred to the latter. Why has this been lounged?? Couldn't be more relevant.

Exactly what I mean, wouldn't the average druggie prefer an ounce of coke to a gram? Lets bring back imperial.

Decimilation means Inflation. Ten into twelve does not go. Well,it does, it's 1.2, but you see what I mean. The duo decimal system had many advantages most of them far too complex for the average forum user to understand. Most forumites have difficulty using more than their ten fingers and some have complications over two. Anyway, we should get back to our imperial (good word that eh?) system. We currently have two systems, does ?5.35 a gallon sound worse than ?1.19 a litre. I think so missus.

I've got a small number of very old plans of houses in Dulwich where the land is measured in acres, rods and poles. 'Rods, poles, perches and roods were all rather confused. They could all be a measure of length (5.5 yards). Rods, poles and perches could also be a measure of area (5.5 yards square, or 30.25 square yards). So a 10 perch allotment would be 5.5 yards wide by 55 yards long. A rood could be a measure of area (1210 square yards). The dictionary also cheerfully states that this could vary round the country' Maybe the short guy was right. Vive la France!!

Almost unbelieveably, it used (30 odd years ago) to be the best Fish & Chips in the area. The plants were in there then. Must have it's own biosphere, or whatever you trendy young green people call it these days.

Alright, waterfall then.

Be a waterall on Barry Road surely?

rumour roamer, just overheard, in a pub no less, Grace & Favour from NCR have bought the Mag. Can this be true or am I being gullible again? Probably the latter.

MP perhaps you need a spin doctor.

Brendan I think it's a 60% tax rate in Denmark and about half of the population of London in the whole country. Nice park in Copenhagen, lovely trees.

Ok jrussell, you win, I'm going to chain myself to any tree even remotely threatened with removal in the area. Or, I might relocate to Luton.

If I'd said axe you would have thought I meant a guitar. I think the green things a bit oversold myself which is why I'm not too precious about removing trees, although probably too precious about pollarding them.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDOldie is supporting you because (s)he feels > cutting trees is cruel (and presumably inhumane), > when you want to see the things slaughtered to > line your pocket with green-folding. > > Brings new meaning to 'barmy alliance'. > > EDOldie, stop it. That's silly. > I think it's better to remove a tree rather than chop it around to fit in with whatever. Trees are not more important than people and circumstances can arise where they need to be removed and that can lead to people making money. Thats life. I simply feel jrusssell has a point, it might not be a good one, but it is a point. And that people can be a bit quick to condemn and shout down anyone who says anything that doesn't fit in with the hackneyed eco/pc views of trendy ED. If I got my chopper out that would be silly.

OK, I'll go along with *Bob*'s solution. Easily the best post of the whole discussion.

So, just to pose a hypothetical problem, if its a choice between desperately needed social housing and an inappropriately planted tree the tree wins?

The trees may not feel any pain (how do you know??, nurse the screens) but it pains me to see them chopped around like this. And they look very ugly, not as they should. Very small tree outside Oldie Towers so no claim from me and I (strangely enough) am not currently involved in any planning application that involves the removal of any tree. But I do feel very strongly about this, most people who claim to love trees can't, as I said earlier, see the wood. Jah, does anyone work for Foxtons anymore?

Lush!!! I'm shocked. Last time I buy you a drink, MATE!

Shaolin, it's a word I don't use often but, wrong. An urban environment would be misplaced in a forest but not necessarily the other way round. Lets accept that we live in a city and give the trees a chance. There are few things more beautiful than some of the fully grown, and growing, trees in Dulwich Park, Dulwich Woods, Peckham Rye and on Goose Green to name but a few locations. Also there are few more unsightly and I'll say it again, cruel sights, than trees pollarded or overcrowded or hit by buses in surroundings that are not appropriate to their mass. London is a series of joined up villages and small towns so not planned in the sense that NYC was. But that is precisely why we have planners today to protect and improve the environment for all of us. Don't let some misplaced romantic 'green' idea distract from the reality that we don?t live in forests anymore. EdOldie, Traitors Gate, Tower of London.

All right then I'll come. But, if theres any rope behind the bar I'm off.

Oh god here we go again, not seeing the wood for the trees. I think he/she has a point, the problem in Southwark (particularly) is that trees have been planted inappropriately. Large trees should be planted where they can grow fully (i.e. parks open spaces etc) and smaller trees along the byways and highways. I would call that planning. I also think the pollarding of trees is cruel and disfiguring. If said tree had been planted in the right place it would not be necessary. And here?s the controversial bit, I'd be all for the removal of large trees which are clearly in the wrong place, if they were replaced with smaller trees. No doubt I'll be hanging from one of the larger ones after the next forum drinks. Altogether now, ?I?m a lumberjack, and I?m ok?

No, you'd be aquaplaning

BBC execs seem well paid

We get the Jewson lot in ED don't we.

I could have mentioned this before, but I'm sure I remember going to see Dulwich hamlet play Chelsea in a friendly at the old stadium on Denmrk Hill in the early 70's. I think there was a connection between the two clubs at that time and they might have played at the Chelsea ground. I can't find anything on the web about it. Did it happen?

They are doing an opening with champers and canapes 12th & 13th July. Not that I'm suggesting anyone with other than a serious interest in buying one of these properties should attend.