Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jacquesm 1002 days ago
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.
3 comments

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.

> 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

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