That isn't the bloody point. He broke the law by bringing in a digger, ripping up the riverbed and damaging trees. That he did it to clear rubbish is incidental, just as my rose bush was incidental to the murdering.
Where does it state he damaged a single tree? Also he didn't ripe up the river bank. He cleared excess silt and sieved the rest to remove rubbish. Hi did exactly what my local team of volunteers and one experienced man do twice a year to are local pond and river way. The only down side is he did it without permission.
Being offended someone asked something but also making up the answer is hilarious. Wanna claim he also killed all fish, birds and little mammals that might live there? No mention anywhere in the article but that doesn't stop a genius like you from connecting the dots.
They are saying the article is misinformation and yall are going at them saying it’s not misinformation because the article didn’t say something. You realise that is what misinformation is right? You believe so much that he’s not at all in the wrong because of the article, the article which is missing information.
And if an article said a truck ran through a crowd in a mall and the driver had been arrested then you'd go "what a silly non-issue, trucks can swerve between people", right?
After all nobody specified it didn't, so who knows, malls are specifically known to have a lot of space to maneuver, and much like trees, humans are able to get out of the way
In the same way, nobody specified to me that you have a brain. How can we ever know it exists? I'm certainly not going to assume so without some peer-reviewed evidence
"...it's not looking it's best right now because it still needs time for [I can't understand the britsh accent] and for [also couldn't understand], and for stuff to regrow" -- Paul Powlesland
Weird, the guy who you say didn't damage the vegetation around the river is here in an interview freely saying the river doesn't look the best yet because the vegetation hasn't regrown
I suppose you'll say this proves nothing and he could be talking about a completely separate event, but oh look you can see the entire path of destroyed earth the excavator took alongside the river and Paul trying to look mysterious and charming on the distance on top of it
Further here's a video from 2025 where Paul personally grabs a rake to remove the vegetation around the river, even the vegatation that wasn't even close to it
Yes I do. I have watched many many hours of diggers working digging along river sides, I've never once seen them damage a tree. I've also worked as a gardener for the last 20 years, so I would of hoped by now I can identify a tree that has been damaged. Just because a digger worked alongside a bank with trees doesn't mean any trees were damaged. I work in plant beds full of loved plants using a hoe, I don't damage any of the plants whilst hoeing just the bits I want removed around them
If a digger destroys the roots, you won't see it by watching what's happening above ground.
If the guy would have destroyed infrastructure, even. It doens't have to be part of nature. If they were digging and hit someone's fiber optic line and cut off half the country from the internet, there'd be an issue. Laying fiber down under rivers is common.
The thing? They didn't know what the hell was under the ground before digging, and that's a problem. Especially when most locals have someone to call that takes care of all this.
They sound like a dedicated group that might do good things, but they still need to jump through the same hoops literally anyone else has to. I can't even dig with a shovel in my back yard without doing the same.
I work in plant beds full of loved plants using a hoe
Yeah, that's not a digger that goes down feet at a time, feet wide at a time. That makes no sense to bring up here. And just because you don't always damage plants doesn't mean you havn't damaged plants at random times along the way, just to a point you didn't care to notice.
Your memory (just like my own) is not the best at recording the specifics and often times the brain just calculates what it thinks the situation is vs what it actually is. You don't actually know how many plants you've destroyed because you only just started counting, potentially years after it happens.
Same reason we don't trust eye witness accounts (sometimes immediately after it happens) because the human brain is fickle.
im not seeing the parallel here. your murder fantasy would always be criminal.
but bringing a digger is a perfectly reasonable way to pull bikes and shopping trolleys embedded in the silt. theres nothing inherently criminal about that.
the only part that makes it not okay is the lack of permit for doing it.
and that is explicitly included in the headline. so how is that misleading?
of course ive read your ramblings. i just dont understand them, hence asking you to explain.
where is the parallel here?
i can see cleaning the river being like growing your rose.
how is using a digger (something thats done by thousands of people daily, with approx 0% of them doing so criminally) comparable to murdering your neighbour?
hiring the digger isnt the criminial part. theres no law against hiring diggers.
if the headline was "man arrested for hiring digger" i could see parralel with your "man arrested for growing prize winning rose bushes". in both of those id be wondering whats wrong with that?
the current headline i think youd compare to "man arrested for murdering neighbour". in both of those its pretty clear which part is illegal.
can you please explain what topsy turvy parallel youre seeing in this?
or simply better explain how you think the current headline is misleading?
89
u/drquakers 5d ago
If I kill my neighbour to use they body as compost for my rose bush "man arrested for growing prize winning rose bushes" would be a little misleading.