The Forest of Sutton Bulletin 3

Just had an offer from a fellow artist that, if the Sutton Foresters cause me to chop down my "untidy tree", he will come with his chain saw and video camera, to help me; and for us to make an artwork of it.

By the way. Here is the tree...

I am sure you can see all that nasty blossom. That attracts insects. And the branches provide habitat for birds. Nasty. Noisy. It has to come down. It is untidy. U N T I D Y.

The Sutton Foresters do what they can. Just when anything overwintering would be poking its nose out, they send insect bailiffs out to blow through the public grass to kill off any survivors.

And to ensure that there can be no dispute over their decisions, they have nothing written down by way of criteria and guidance of the management of private land. They tell you to work it out for yourself under threat of criminal action: that ensures that people are sufficiently thorough in their destruction of the natural world.

The Complaints Procedure has been suspended; but it is a secret that this is the case.

Complaints are just ignored and the Procedure continues to be advertised, in order to give the more pliable a sense of security whilst ensuring that our Dear Leaders are not opposed.

To make sure that you  understand the problem, I give you here a picture of a tidy tree.

As you can see, if you know what's good for you -- the Sutton Forest is a dangerous place  and you wouldn't want to get in trouble -- there's no comparison; and the owners have had the basic human decency to cover up the bare earth for ever.

Anyone with that amount of tree (first example) in their front garden -- and there were more trees there before the owner repented his grievous sins -- cannot hear the noise of sound systems and cars 24 / 7. It means that person isn't participating fully in society and has to be brought in by force for their own good. In the second picture, a civilised compromise has been reached, apparently.

Also, the first tree inhibits the desire and ability of people passing  to peer in to the house and assess the desirability of sharing the Forest of Sutton with that person. The London Borough of Sutton employs staff who compile files on people for this very purposes. The results are available to any licensed bigot and distributed by gossip. But it isn't enough and people want a choice of information sources.

The police have warned us, nationally, that anyone who does not cooperate all the time with constant surveillance by keeping themselves permanently visible is probably a terrorist; and the police are experts.

Few people of the Sutton Forest ever face such a dilemma, not with their famous cry of "Yes to Forest! No to trees" which superseded the earlier "Yes to Choice but no to Freedom." They acquire very wide digital screens and want to be able to show them off, glowing, to the street without any impedance. That's enough for most of us.  Most people in Sutton are rightly proud of the light pollution they cause. They have put trees behind them, except as exhibits in a zoo.

I'll do a bulletin on the Sutton Forest Tree Zoo very shortly.

*

I have confessed to people how light my ecological footprint is; and this has caused understandable fear. It's my own fault.

As someone said the other day: "You're the kind of person who wouldn't go to a public hanging. You're not Christian."

Anyway, I must go out soon into the anthropogenic bad weather [chorus: Don't be so damn stupid; how ridiculous]

I have thanked my friend but am not sure I want a video. I can think of other approaches.