If I have understood it correctly this appears to be the staff of the forest in a dispute with town councillors and then, in the style of an Ealing Comedy, all is resolved when a third party points out that the town council has no jurisdiction over the piece of land where the tree is planted.

It does seem unnecessary to kill any beautiful living tree so as to display its dead body somewhere for a few weeks rather than let it live and thrive.

I wonder what is the carbon cost of cutting it down in that the dead tree is no longer absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

I know that the one from Norway in Trafalgar square in London was always burned afterwards in case it had some tree disease or some such story.

Perhaps the solution would be to plant one and have it there permanently.

Norway Spruce looks good in spring when fresh green shoots appear and there is a two-tone green display.

On an issue that might be related, in Evesham they used to have, and maybe still do, a Tree of Light each year as Christmas approahes.

And they used to kill a tree and display its body and people could pay (I think it went to charity) to have the name of a deceased loved one listed in a roll of honour that was published and also conserved.

For whatever reason, the Tree of Light changed from killing a tree and decorating it with lights to decorating a large tree growing in the town, it is either a sequoiadendron or a sequoia, with lights, the same tree every year.

William

In the event, the title is not accurate as to what happened.

I’m afraid I don’t see it that way, William. The title is

Eco-warriors block Pope’s Christmas tree from being felled

and towards the end of the article it says

In other words, they decided not to donate the tree that was originally chosen.

In the event, the title is not accurate as to what happened.

Wider ethical issues too.

William