Trees???
 

I recently took the dog for a walk along the old railway lines in Baxenden and, for the first time in a long time, I walked up through the large meadow (commonly known by the Hollins schoolkids as "Killer Hill") next to the football pitches. I was met with the sight of hundreds of plastic things hiding young trees. Now I love trees as much as anybody (probably more than most) but I think some places are better without them. This particular meadow has sweeping views and plenty of space for dogs to run free, not to mention a safe place for women alone to walk the dog. I was frankly sickened by the sight of it.
Does anyone know who is responsible for this act of environmental vandalism? When grown the views will be gone and the whole area will be enclosed and potentially unsafe.
Answers please.

Re: Trees???
 

Fraid I don't have any answers, just questions really!

Is it private or public land?

Is the planting very regular like managed woodland of more haphazard?

Perhaps you could take another walk along that way and take a few shots (if you have a digital camera) and put them on here to show just how much planting has gone on and what kind of trees have been planted...I'm not exactly sure of the view that way so would be useful to see that too!:)

Re: Trees???
 

It won't be private land Di, people with sense won't waste there money like ;)

Re: Trees???
 

Government grants are awarded for creation of new woodlands

The Big Tree Plant funding scheme open for applications
"The campaign - to plant one million extra trees across England in the next four years - was launched by Defra Minister Jim Paice in December and is the first government tree planting campaign since the 1970s. It will plant trees in urban areas that need them most, harnessing the Big Society to deliver benefits to local communities."

Trees improve air quality and provide wildlife habitat.

Re: Trees???
 

Well there was loads of wild life around Ossy the other week and ya didn't like it:eek:

Re: Trees???
 

Rumour has it that an ogre lives near me at the bottom of the hill .;)

(grammar now corrected)

Re: Trees???
 

Thought you lived at the top of the hill:confused::confused::confused:;)

Re: Trees???
 

(grammar now corrected)

Re: Trees???
 

My cousin has got a huge tree right outside her house on the Milnshaw estate. It's growing in the pavement and the roots periodically come up through the paving which the council then replace with tarmac -which they come up through even faster. The thing spews branches and leaves all over her front garden as well.

There are a few trees like this on the estate -I reckon they were there before the houses were built and the council just left them.

Trees in urban areas are nearly always in the wrong place. The previous owner of our house had a thing about trees and planted lots of small saplings along the edge of our property. Far too close together, they have now grown, obviously, and are overshadowing and sticking out into the small narrow private road where we live. Which means we have to keep cutting bits off so vehicles can get through and because we are in a conservation area there is a limit to what we can do.

There was no need for these trees from an environmental point of view as right behind the house is the old cemetery which is full of trees and is being managed for wildlife.

Re: Trees???
 

Well if you wrote what you ment you wouldn't have to correct it would ya:D

Re: Trees???
 

(spelling now corrected)

Re: Trees???
 

wrong post quoted

Re: Trees???
 

Surely that's a matter of personal opinion. Lots of people would no doubt prefer a wooded area.

Re: Trees???
 

Plenty of trees to pick from

Re: Trees???
 

Ring the Special Branch

Re: Trees???
 

So nobody knows then? Incidentally I don't know what kind of trees they are (they were in plastic covers last I saw) but they are indeed regimented in a way that trees never grow naturally. Also it is worth pointing out that if we need trees that badly then why has someone completely destroyed a small forest around Grane reservoir in Haslingden, making it look like it has been hit by a large meteor? A place of great beauty has been obliterated.
It seems we are destroying what we have and replacing it with that which we don't need.
Or maybe I'm just moaning!

Re: Trees???
 

Classic wadey:D:D

Re: Trees???
 

No maybe about it, you should fit right in.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...you-34379.html

Re: Trees???
 

Seems like it. I think I've got to that age when one's opinions always come out like moaning. Some people call it wisdom, others call it grumpy old git syndrome. You should hear me when I've had a drink. Not that I drink that much: the only days I drink are on days with a "day" in it.
Still, back to the trees.............!

Re: Trees???
 

Nice bit of wittering, hope you follow the links, then give us your personal view on a few other threads. (Wouldn't want you sticking to just one thread, that could seem obsessive).
:)

Re: Trees???
 

Think you'll find it's all part of a renewable resources policy, trees that have been planted then matured are cut down to be used & new trees are planted so the resource will be available in the future, common sense really.

Re: Trees???
 

That's not the reason quoted on posters on Grane. Somethiing to do with the fact that the trees were not "indigenous" and therefore not good for wildlife, although there was plenty of wildlife there before the habitat was decimated. I suspect that United Utilities just wanted to make some extra cash by selling timber.
All that apart, it doesn't explain why we are planting trees on open meadow. Incidentally I have yet to speak to one person locally who actually agrees with what's been done.

Re: Trees???
 

Are you sure it is United Utilities land?

Please could you post a google map link showing where you mean because I am not sure exactly where you are talking about?

Re: Trees???
 

Grane Res is United Utilities land. The land I am talking about isn't. Don't know who owns it for sure. I do know that it used to be mown for hay so at some point a farmer must have owned it in some way, even if only renting it. The meadow is just off the railway line path at Baxenden, in between the woods behind Hollins school and St. Georges football pitches.

Re: Trees???
 

I do think your trying to flap without wings, in your first post you said:-

So you don't go there often but now it seems to be a priority, you asked for answers, you're getting them, do you know enough about the land to say what is the best purpose it should be used for? Or are you just in rant mode because you hate change, even if the change is to something you hardly ever see?

Re: Trees???
 

If you don't like trees, the feeling is probably mutual.

Plant perception (paranormal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Trees???
 

I used to go there every morning but had to stop because work commitments meant I didn't have time. The fact of the matter is I would still do that every day but I have now been put off by environmental vandalism so please stop talking out of complete ignorance of the facts, Less.
As far as answers go I think you will find, if you look at my original question, I haven't had a single one.
Margaret, your statement is a nonsense because, again, if you look at my original post and actually read it you would find that I said I like trees as much as anyone, probably more.

Re: Trees???
 

And so it begins you aren't getting the response you want so every one is either being ignorant or talking nonsense.
Could it not just be that you are fussing just a tad overmuch?

Re: Trees???
 

I assume then, Less, that your attitude to the environment is, "If I don't go there it doesn't matter".
Nothing is "beginning". I simply asked a question. It's not a major deal to me whether I get an answer or not, my response previously was to your statement, "You wanted answers, now your getting them". To which I was simply replying, "No I'm not". As I pointed out, looking through the thread, no one has answered my question at all. It's not a problem to me and if no-one can answer the question it doesn't matter.
As far as the "nonsense" term is concerned perhaps I was being a bit unfair to Margaret. I should maybe just have pointed out that she had mis-read my original post.

Re: Trees???
 

Please don't 'assume', if you know for a fact that the above is true then post it otherwise keep your inaccurate conclusions to yourself.

Just to put you out of your misery, I love tree's in fact I am probably directly responsible for the trees you have such a Bee in your buttocks about.

I love trees so much I bulk buy Velvet toilet rolls just because they plant three trees for every tree I use. (I could send you a pack if you want, you could wipe the BS off your keyboard).
:)

Re: Trees???
 

Ah, as they say, less is more. More than happy to start an argument but not so happy when someone bites back.
I'm afraid that the world is full of people who make assumptions, including you my friend, but your "assumptions" about me don't offend me. I can brush them aside, as indeed you can, if you really try.

Re: Trees???
 

Deary me, right on track, trying to make fun of the name, how many have taken that obvious path?
Please allow me to inform you, you are not my friend, until you do something worthwhile on site you won't be my 'friend', you are just a newbie with a hatred to you're own personal change.

What did you think we would do when you started this thread? Light torches and attack the so called swine that dared to plant trees where you don't want them?

Well here's some news, we get folk like you every week always wanting their pet hate to be backed up, they always start off exactly how you did, then suprise, suprise get upset when they don't get the backup that they think they deserve.

You can carry on the way you are, or you could change your attitude and become a worthwhile member of the site.

Perhaps now would be a good time to shut up and go hug a tree until you have calmed down?
:o

Re: Trees???
 

I take it then that you have been spouting your bile on here for quite some time then, my friend.

Re: Trees???
 

think if you look closely at his posts it tells you:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

Thought so, Jay. Been on various forums over the years and every one of them has one. Not to worry, I expect he's really quite a nice chap once you get to know him.

Re: Trees???
 

The only thing is Less is in with the valuation on here and hopefully you'll get to like him, I have:D

Re: Trees???
 

I'm sure I will. I didn't come on here to make enemies. I do like a good argument but it ddoesn't really work for me when it gets too personal.

Re: Trees???
 

They call a spade a shovel on here houseboy:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

Excuse me?

It was you that started addressing posts directly at members wasn't it?

Perhaps you should consider who has been attempting (and failing) to insult whom?
:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

So yeh class it as bile,when its a different viewpoint to yours? Cos i have read nothing on this thread i regard as bile.:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

Oh dear, oh dear, we do seem to have set the cat among the pigeons don't we. Obviously there seem to be those who like to give "newbies" a tough initiation, well that's okay, I have broad shoulders and I ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

Re: Trees???
 

What a load of crap, there seem to be some newbies wi ruddy big heads to me.:rolleyes: Oh special one.

Re: Trees???
 

The only newbies that get a tough initiation are those that complain before they were hurt, in your case you asked a question didn't get the reaction you wanted, (let's all hate the tree planters), you've done nowt' but complain since.


You also claim to be used to sites like this, have moved about a bit and try to belittle the fact I've been here a while, I wonder...

Why do you need to change sites and I stay where I am?

Could it be Jambutty syndrome?

Re: Trees???
 

Such anger. How do you know I was looking for "a reaction"? I simply posed a question. As I have said before I really don't care too much what the answers are. I simply asked the question, "Does anyone know who planted them". I also stated that I didn't (speaking personally you understand) think that it was an appropriate place to put them. I didn't start the thread to grind an axe, so to speak. So your statement about me not getting the reaction I wanted is wrong isn't it.
I'm used to sites like this yes. Again you make the completely unfounded assumption that I am no longer on the others. You have no proof about what I do or do not do but yet again you make statements without knowing the facts. You "assume" that I change sites, this is also untrue. Wrong again.
One question though, what the heck is "jam butty syndrome"?
By the way, I'm avoiding swearing, which is more than Cashman can do.

Re: Trees???
 

So ruddy @ Crap are swearing in yer little world? poor chap, such a sheltered life.:rolleyes: I can only apologise if such strong language offends yer delicate lugs. Perhaps if yeh go hug a tree it would be beneficial?

Re: Trees???
 

Calm down cashy you'll have us native think your going soft in your old age:D

Re: Trees???
 

Not really mate,I just get a little weary of some of these,who think they are special, Only Jose Mourinho merits that title.;)

Re: Trees???
 

P.M dusty mears, she volunteers for the prospects foundation & other green organisations she'll probably know who's planted them & why.

Re: Trees???
 

Re: Trees???
 

Maybe the OP can go and protest at this one and maybe find out the answers he wants for the one near Hollins

Have Your Say about Community Woodland

Re: Trees???
 

Perhaps its worth running a Sweep?:hehetable

Re: Trees???
 

Why the big black and bold?..:)..funny thing is you and some others are a good example of any Jambutty syndrome:D

Re: Trees???
 

I am in fact perfectly happy and not in the least sulking. In fact, if you knew me at all, which of course you don't, you would know that I am probably the least "sulky" person you would ever hope to meet.
I don't understand why you wonder why I asked the question in the first place? Isn't a forum of free speach a way to get answers to things that baffle us, bemuse us or have concerns about? If you consider my question "daft" perhaps you could give me an example of an "intelligent" question? What makes you think I asked the question to start an argument and why do you think I had any sort of "plan"?
As for your veiled threats of being removed from the site, I can understand if you don't like what I have to say and frankly I don't really care, but if you really do want to stifle free speech and argument just to prove you can, well that is your choice. Just remember that famous quote, "I disagree with eveything that man says but I would die to defend his right to say it".

Re: Trees???
 

Hoody blell are we down to critising print sizes now to score points.

So I can read it, why else.

Re: Trees???
 

As for your veiled threats of being removed from the site, I can understand if you don't like what I have to say and frankly I don't really care,
Youv'e just proved your a stirrer, I never made a veiled threat to removing you, I was just reminding you we have met your sort before on here. Only the mods can remove people.
And if your don't really care, then why do you bother at all. Are you just another one, quick with the Gob, talks all day and says nowt.

Re: Trees???
 

What exactly is my "sort" then, Retlaw? Am I the sort who asks a perfectly reasonable question and then gets accused of asking "daft" questions? Am I the sort who simply points out that my original question has not been answered but that it is of no consequence (how many times do I have to say that before it eventually sinks in?). Am I the sort who is accused of "sulking" because I haven't got the "answers I was looking for"? I am the sort who is called a stirrer because I suggest that there is a veiled threat (read your own words again) of removal? If that is the case then guilty as charged.
There are far better threads on this forum than this one and, as it has strayed way off the mark from my original "daft" question, I would say it is time to end it but the only reason I keep coming back to it at all is to ascertain why Less, Cashman and now your good self Retlaw seem to think that I am a troublemaker. I asked the question, I didn't get an answer (presumably because no-one knows) and it is seriously not a problem to me.

Re: Trees???
 

There you go again, getting personal and also getting it wrong, I don't think you're a troublemaker I have yet to form any real opinion of you at all, though you are making it easier with each of your posts to guide me towards a definite conclusion.
:D

Re: Trees???
 

See jumping to the wrong conclusion again, I don't think yer a troublemaker at all, A Balloon certainly, a troublemaker not at this stage.:rolleyes: And the famous quote yeh quoted in a previous post backs up my conclusion, if yeh reckon it holds good.:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

I said "seem to think", my impression not a statement of fact and perhaps you would point out how I was getting personal? I was replying in the main to actual statements made by you (meaning you generically not individually) and I believe I have the right to make myself clear.
I am really not that disagreeable. I think that perhaps we should draw a line under all this and start again. Circular arguments aren't really my thing and I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of things we agree on. I think my posts on other threads show that. This is, of course, not to say I will never argue again.
Suffice to say that nothiing I have said was meant to be personal in a derogatory way but if anyone has taken it to be so please accept my apologies.

Re: Trees???
 

How magnanimous, of you to allow us to start again, I for one will if you will, meanwhile allow me a few reservations.
:)

Re: Trees???
 

All this over a few sodding trees:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

Re: Trees???
 

Ah yes, but from little Acorns mighty Oaks do grow.

We might just be able to branch out and really develop a worthwhile thread.

Methinks the guy's bark is worse than his bite.

Have you twigged yet? let's leaf this thread alone.

Surely even this post was worth logging on for?

We, the members should be rooting for a greater contribution from our sapling members.

O.K. I give up my head hurts, someone elses turn.
:)

Re: Trees???
 

Let's not beat about the bush, it's plane to see and elm-entary that out of the ash of this trunk-ated thread wood arise a new and more poplar forum for those who are sycamore ranting.

Re: Trees???
 

Your just larching about susie:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

I won't pine when this thread ends.
...but yew never can tell when that will be
..it could prove poplar

Re: Trees???
 

Wood you Adam & Eve it ? Budding from his planting a question, the thread has blossomed in to something horticultural & rather high bough at times. I cedar way this is branching out so we don't need to get back to the roots & if we stick with this vine, who knows ? I think we'd be barking to stop now, so just shrub your shoulders & willownly know as we carry on if this will be an evergreen or knot. :)



Some deciduously dubious ones there, but hey, no need to keep it privet or beat around the bush,after all ,we're only larching about. :D

Re: Trees???
 

Well I'm totally stumped at the moment..but I do beleaf this thread needs to be spruced up.

Re: Trees???
 

Time to finish, OAKy?

Re: Trees???
 

I agree - Too many tree puns ar bouring

Re: Trees???
 

Why all the hassle recently against new members? I just don't get it...can't see the wood for the trees perhaps...:confused:

Re: Trees???
 

This thread is barking mad

Re: Trees???
 

If you feel that way it's Fir enough.
:)

Re: Trees???
 

calf hey res in june ....:D:D:D

Re: Trees???
 

I have just read through the posts in this thread and noted that no answer has yet been given to Houseboy's original question. I have therefore e-mailed the Baxenden councillors to see if they can shed any light on this tree-planting scheme. Seems like this might be a sensible place to start.

Re: Trees???
 

It's a fair coppice.

Re: Trees???
 

Thanks to all for your contributions on this thread, good, bad and genuinely funny. Thank you also, Less, for (I think) accepting my olive branch. Still a bit baffled as to why some people think that an offer of "peace" is somehow being "gobby" and "saying nowt" but I suppose you can't please all the people all the time.
Anyway, onwards and upwards.

Re: Trees???
 

Further to my post of 21st August I have received the following information from the Baxenden Councillors:-
"The trees were planted by Lancashire County Council as part of the tree campaign that has been running through Lancashire. There have been several complaints about the number of trees, but LCC are not prepared to do anything; they say that not all of the trees will take and that is why so many have been planted."
Hope this is helpful!

Re: Trees???
 

Thanks very much for this Judith. It took a while to get here but I got the answer I wanted at last. Many thanks again.

Re: Trees???
 

spent the time to read from begining to end, even followed the links and read them.

houseboy asked a question, got flamed off "the usual suspects", surprised,that as a newbie he wasnt put off the site, everyone joined in with the levity, and the answer was found in the end. but usual suspects managed to flex their muscles and put newbie in his place. Also the amount of rules that were "broken", when you actually compare a post to the rules themselves

newbie baiting, of the highest order, and in "my opinion" houseboy well done for not taking the bait completely, and showing a little "decorum" for want of a better word.

if you actually, read it from beginning to end, if the usual suspects, would have just left alone, ignored the thread if they had no answers, within a few posts a new member, and for anything to survive it needs new members, would have had his answer, and thought "what a nice bunch of people", instead he is now possibly thinking "sites ok, but not very welcoming"

we are accrington web, lancashire folk, we are supposed to be friendly and welcoming, its what we are known for and proud of.
i havent seen it anywhere thats says "Welcome to Lanacashire, a place where everyone natters ( then in small print, but only if we dont think your moaning, and we wont get to know you first before we try to unleash our humour on you, and our first impressions of you will be used against you forever)

As for the trees i agree with AW, i much prefer the fells!, but thats not what you asked, but you already have your answer

thats my rant, its not the opener for a discussion, argument, a verbal challenge, i haven't named anyone other than Houseboy, i don't see the point of "answering" to this, although no doubting some will, i won't, this is the last post in this thread i shall make, and therefore accuse me of what you will.

darren

Re: Trees???
 

Another clever beggar,that knows it all, but knows nowt.:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

So, once again, we have somebody giving us the benefit of their wisdom on how to improve Accyweb, Usually it's a newcomer, but sometimes it's someone like you who's been on for a few years, but has suddenly decided to become a regular poster.

Well, thanks, but no thanks. We're quite happy as we are and we're not going to change because you happen to think we should do. Accyweb may be a hostile, forbidding place to newcomers in your view, but it's funny how we keep seeing fresh faces hopping on board. And we must be doing something right because Accyweb, for all its faults, is one of the most lively, popular local forums in the area. If you don't believe me, go and take a look at the forums for neighbouring towns. Everyone's oh so polite, logical, adult, happy to keep to the subject in hand...and deadly, deadly dull and boring. That's why they have fewer members and fewer posts than us.

So, Daz, as I say, thanks for your advice, but we'll pass this one up! ;)

Re: Trees???
 

Maybe he had problems with his potty training:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

Maybe he hates mummy because he din't have a pot to train in?
:(

Re: Trees???
 

Woweee, spent the time to read a thread 6 or so pages long, a thread that the starter could have looked up for himself.

Why not spend time apologising to those whose post's you could have read rather than just assuming that any opinion but your's does not deserve fair scrutiny?
:(

Re: Trees???
 

Spot on Wyn, Burnley has gone, Blackburn is very quiet and so is Rossendale, there aren't too many sites like this that have visits from over 150 members every day and god knows how many guests. So as you say if somethings right and it ain't broke it don't need fixing, and for those who think it should change there are other websites, go find:rolleyes:

Re: Trees???
 

Agree other forums are dead/dying frequently, as someone said this place will not suit everyone, well if it don't sod off to somewhere that does suit.:rolleyes: