Hacker News Reader

Comment by techterrier | Hacker News Reader

local landowner* was getting cross with all the people coming to see it. I've had a couple of run ins with them walking the dog there

* edit: i mentioned this on another forum and was corrected- the land is owned by the National Trust, my run ins were probably with a tennant farmer.

View on HN

What happens when an unstoppable instagram generation meets an immovable NIMBY.

The popularity of that tree predates Instagram. Insta might exacerbate the phenomenon but it's not new. E.g. Rick Steves and Cinque Terre.

As I touched on in another comment, social media is a disproportionate attractor of travelers for many famous locations around the world, especially for those that are "out of the way". In addition, there is an influx of global middle class with the newly found means to travel. Over a billion people in a generation.

Even in already-popular places I think there is something about “getting the photo” that gives people this kind of tunnel vision where they’ll behave in ways they might not otherwise. It has been noticeable living near and regularly walking/running across the Brooklyn Bridge and through the Front and Washington viewpoint in DUMBO, before and after the rise of Instagram. People are aggressive, selfish, and absolutely unaware of others as they try to get their version of a photo that is taken tens of thousands of times a day.

I wish people would realize that their vacation photos should include, well, them. When I travel, I'm taking pictures of my family doing things, not the things they're doing. No one needs another generic copy of just the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty.

I don't want photos of me popping up in my holiday photos. I want things that reminds me of where I went, not my poor fashion choices when abroad!

I don't know why people don't just download a photo then?

Of what? You assume I just go to famous landmarks and take typical photos of them? A small fraction of my photos chorus be obtained online. Most are fairly unique.

I find it hard to download memories and mementos

I recall a story I once read about an elderly woman showing her family videos from her trip to the Grand Canyon decades before. You could hear her shooing her family out of the video so she could get a good view of the Grand Canyon, and afterwards she just wished she had more video of her family, not of a landmark. There are innumerable photos of most of these places, only a few of family and friends.

Oh, there'll be photos of themselves, all posed in the same way and always with the same smiles, straight off the factory line.

I let people enjoy what they want, I swear, but rote instagram portraits are as bland as wet newspaper.

Some people just enjoy photographing you know. Personally I do both.

Reminds me of a wonky pub that inconveniently burnt down recently.

I wonder if such tennant can be evicted.

If it's found they felled the tree then they're in a lot of trouble.

Sadly it would be pretty hard to pin this on them. Farmers and field owners get away with almost anything in the UK. Look at the gorse fires or the state of Lough Neagh.

I believe you but I find it hard to imagine that something like this would go without serious consequences. Here in NL cutting down any tree, even if it is on your own land requires a permit. Doing it without a permit to a vandalize a valuable piece of heritage should not be without consequences.

> Here in NL cutting down any tree, even if it is on your own land requires a permit.

Depends on the municipality. Rules around cutting down trees vary from "go ahead if it's not one of these 5 protected trees" to "please pay 1000 euro to request a permit 6 weeks in advance".

Go ahead is still a permit though.

Many municipalities state there is no need for a permit unless you want to cut down specific protected trees.

The problem is proving it; everyone in rural areas know of things that occur "outside the law" and exactly who did it, but there's no court-admissible evidence.

Court admissible evidence is more likely to turn up when it's front page news and people are digging though.

Same with the recent story about a famous pub called the Crooked House, which mysteriously caught fire a month after a new owner took over the closed premises and was demolished remarkably swiftly. Because it generated a lot of outrage (not from regular patrons, but from people who liked how it looked), it got more attention than your average arson where the owners were obvious suspects, and sure enough there have been actual arrests as well as rumours about other fires involving the same owners and evidence of demolition equipment having been leased the day before the fire

Rumours and arrests are one thing and not uncommon in any case, but has anyone been charged with a crime?

Rumours about organizations behind the incident are normally in local pubs rather than national newspapers though. The last couple of arrests were only today, with three more released on bail. Proving it in a courtroom is another thing, but it sounds to me like more resource than would usually be thrown at investigating a fire in an empty building.

Rumours in the pub and rumours in the paper are no different in the court of law. Has any evidence been brought forward and has anyone been charged with a crime?

Rumours in the national press are a lot more influential in allocating police resources to finding evidence and interviewing suspects than rumours in the local pub.

Not really sure why you're continuing to insist on a Sherlock Holmes style resolution where everyone's been charged and all evidence is in the public domain within the first couple of months, but what is evident is that it hasn't been abandoned like it often would have been by now.

You said that "Court admissible evidence is more likely to turn up when it's front page news and people are digging" and then used this as an example. I'm asking because it doesn't seem to actually be an example of what you're claiming.

I used it as a topical example of another ongoing case where court admissible evidence was more likely to turn up because the police are more motivated to look for it and people with possibly relevant information more likely to testify, yes. If I had meant my outrageously bold claim that stuff is more likely to be found if more people look harder for it to rest entirely on this case, I would have said so!

If you're struggling to see any link between five people being bailed and a case being somewhat more thoroughly investigated and likely to make it to court than the average empty building arson, maybe leave the tedious armchair lawyering to someone who can.

Was fire insurance involved? The fire insurance companies are often one of the only ones willing to dig into this stuff.

You've misunderstood me. Cutting down this tree in the UK also needs permission. The question is only whether the landowner in question can or would be tied to the crime and punished.

This is also an issue in the NL. I grew up in the UK but I've lived the most significant years of my life in the NL so I feel like I can speak a bit to both cases. If something happens in the countryside with noone around to see there's very little that can be done, there's a certain impunity or a security through obscurity that exists outside of cities.

And I know that this is HN and what I'm about to say doesn't quite meet general etiquette rules here, but the idea that farmers are somehow more controlled in the NL than elsewhere is laughable when the literal Farmers Party is one of the main political forces in the country.

> And I know that this is HN and what I'm about to say doesn't quite meet general etiquette rules here, but the idea that farmers are somehow more controlled in the NL than elsewhere is laughable when the literal Farmers Party is one of the main political forces in the country.

No disagreement on that one, we're out of control to put it mildly. The next elections (which are soon) will be 'interesting' for all the wrong reasons.

That's because the police generally don't give a toss, and neither do the courts.

If it gets in the newspapers etc, then it's suddenly in their interests to do something.

DNA samples will be getting taken as we speak.

Not really. As the police say they are investigating whether a crime has been committed, because quite likely, there has not been.

This is more likely a private matter between tenant and landlord - and unless the lease explicitly prohibits the felling of trees, then they haven’t broken their lease agreement.

If it wasn’t the tenant, then at most it’s vandalism, property damage, and a small fine will be the result.

Criminal damage is definitely classified as a crime, hence the name, even if the punishment is (as you say) likely just a small fine.

There were very few people there every time I've been, seems like a poor reason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com