UKTC Archive

Re: LTOA Article

Subject: Re: LTOA Article
From: Adam Hollis
Date: Feb 15 2004 11:20:38

I haven't been keeping up and don't know if this query was answered to your satisfaction, but I would imagine the quote, as is common in subsidence work, was a reverse engineering of a previous statistic taken out of context.

In this instance, the original source would be the ISE stating that trees were implicated in 70% of subsidence claims.

Then someone came along and said they were wrongly implicated, which by some athletic feet of Aristotlean logic led us to the statement

"trees are wrongly implicated in 70% of the cases"

But I could be wrong



On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 09:00 PM, Mailing List Server wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From:   Consulting Arborist Society
Sent:   09 February 2004 18:30
To:     UK Tree Care
Subject:        LTOA Article

Hi everybody

I have been talking to a reporter from The Telegraph who is going to do an article in the Homes section about the potentially unnecessary removal of
trees around homes.

She was particularly interested in following up an article written and
published by somebody in the LTOA which included the quote "70% of all
trees removed to abate property damage are removed without cause" or words
to that effect.

Can anybody point me and the reporter to the author?

Cheers, D L-J

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre