Kew Gardens expert urges a new approach to looking after trees
The Local Democracy Reporting Service said Mr Martin pointed to the controversy surrounding the felling of an ancient oak tree in Enfield as evidence of increased public interest in trees, along with the public outcry about the destruction of the Sycamore Gap tree in Northumberland.He said: "I do think we need to keep pushing on with that and don't let it go out of the public eye, because as soon as that news story stops, it will all be forgotten about again."He told the London Assembly to "think really carefully now about getting the species selection right" as the capital's trees are suffering from droughts and diseases as the impacts of climate change are worsening.He suggested planting trees with the plasticity to deal with drought stress, and said the Swedes are even making their own soil "so when they do get rain, they can hold the moisture for a lot longer".He added: "They're using a mix of perlite and biochar and also soft, organic mulch, and they're really buying into it and increasing their planting pits."So there's lots of things we have to look at to get the establishment of trees in London."
According to the Greater London Authority, London is the one of the world's largest urban forests, containing an estimated 8.4 million trees in public and private spaces.Mr Martin said that there was no getting away from the fact that London is "a big urban heat island" which typically records temperatures higher than in rural areas.Assembly member Keith Prince said that prior to his election, Sir Sadiq Khan had promised he would plant two million trees in his first term alone - though this pledge did not end up appearing in his formal manifesto.Abby Crisostomo, City Hall's head of green infrastructure, said Sir Sadiq remained committed to his goal of increasing London's tree canopy by 10%, having already funded the planting of more than 600,000 new trees since his election in 2016.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Peaceful ‘pink protest' outside migrant hotel hijacked by masked men
Violent masked men have hijacked a peaceful protest outside a migrant hotel in which women in pink danced a conga. More than 100 demonstrators gathered on Sunday outside the Britannia Hotel in London's Canary Wharf to oppose the use of the four-star accommodation to house asylum seekers. Video showed female protesters dressed in pink performing a cheerful conga as they waved England flags. But the demonstration was soon taken over by a gang of masked men who swarmed the crowd, set off smoke bombs and tried to charge the fence surrounding the hotel before arrests were made. They were also heard chanting 'Keir Starmer's a w----r'. Sunday's protest was the latest in a series of demonstrations over the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, including protests and counter-protests outside the Thistle City Barbican Hotel in Islington on Saturday which led to clashes with police. Smiling as they sang, the conga demonstrators held a banner which said: 'Protecting women and children. It's not far right, it's just right.' One of the protesters was dressed in a T-shirt that depicted the Prime Minister as 'Keir Stalin', with a hammer and sickle, the communist symbol. Lisa, one of the protesters who was dressed in pink, said the protest had been organised by the local community to 'protect our women and kids'. 'We don't want sexual assaults, rapes and robberies in our community. We need proper detention centres and to deport them,' she said. Arrests and chants of 'send them home' Another demonstrator, Kelly, said the reason for dressing in pink was to send a message about 'women and unity'. But then chants of 'send them home' broke out while one man rattled the metal fence outside the hotel in full view of police officers. Tourists, shoppers and guests at a nearby hotel stopped to take pictures of the demonstration. Protesters jeered at people going in and out of the hotel, while at least one man was detained after an angry confrontation with officers. Onlookers chanted 'shame' as he was carried away. Tower Hamlets council was recently informed by the Home Office that it intended to use the hotel to house asylum seekers. In the early hours of Saturday morning, a coachload of men entered the Britannia Hotel, but it is unclear if they were migrants. On Sunday, a food delivery believed to be from Nando's was made to the hotel, which led to a number of boos from protesters. The Home Office would not confirm the identity of the men on the coach, but said in a statement: 'Since this Government took office, we have taken immediate action to fix the asylum system, removing more than 35,000 people with no right to be here in our first year.' Hotel protests spreading On Saturday, the Metropolitan Police made nine arrests after rival groups gathered outside the Thistle City Barbican Hotel in Islington, north London. A protest and counter-protest also took place in Newcastle city centre outside the New Bridge Hotel and four people were arrested on suspicion of public order offences, Northumbria Police said. Scotland Yard said plans were in place to 'respond to any protest activity in the vicinity of other hotels in London being used to accommodate asylum seekers'. Elsewhere, Essex Police placed a number of restrictions on a planned protest in Epping on Sunday evening. The force ordered that the demonstration should finish by 8.30pm and must take place in designated areas outside the Bell Hotel, which has been the focus of a series of protests over the last few weeks. Police have also banned face coverings until 3am on Monday and have the power to direct anyone committing or suspected of committing anti-social behaviour to leave the area until 8am on Monday.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Ministers must summon the courage to right an ‘obvious injustice'
The very judges who handed out 'unfair' indefinite prison sentences have joined The Independent 's campaign to resentence thousands of offenders who are still trapped by a law that was abolished in 2012. Sir John Saunders, a former High Court judge, tells us that he would apologise to offenders he sentenced to imprisonment for public protection (IPP) terms. 'I should say I'm really sorry this has happened; it's extremely unfair,' he said. 'I didn't want to be party to unfairness. I would feel very bad about it, I would apologise to them.' The sentences, described as an 'obvious injustice' by one former senior judge, were introduced by David Blunkett as home secretary in 2005 in an attempt to deal with a small number of offenders who might continue to be a danger to the public. Such prisoners were given no release date, were subject to stringent assessment before being let out, and were then liable indefinitely for recall to prison if they broke the conditions of their release. However, the sentences were used more often than Lord Blunkett intended, and the psychological effects of indefinite detention caused more problems than it solved. Lord Blunkett now describes the policy as his 'biggest regret'. The law was repealed by the coalition government in 2012, but it continued to apply to the thousands of prisoners still serving IPP sentences. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been taken up by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served 19 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. The Independent supports a plan put forward by an expert panel convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which calls for IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing. They should, in effect, be resentenced and treated henceforth on the same basis as all other offenders. James Timpson, the prisons minister, says: 'We have significantly improved support for these offenders, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support. There is more work to do as we reduce the number of IPP offenders in custody, but we will only do so in a way that protects the public.' We understand why ministers in successive governments have been reluctant to go further. They are fearful of the consequences if someone released from an IPP sentence goes on to commit a serious offence. And they are right to make the protection of the public the highest priority. But that will not be achieved by the continued indefinite detention of 2,500 prisoners who were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong time. Especially when a greater risk to the public is probably posed by the early release of prisoners to free up space in our overcrowded prisons. Simon Tonking, the former recorder of Stafford, told The Independent that the Labour government should use its majority to end the injustice by taking up the Howard League's proposals: 'Virtually everybody who has had any professional dealings with IPP knows that it is unjust and now is the time to act.' It is no use for former ministers such as Lord Blunkett and Alex Chalk, the former justice secretary, calling for justice to be done after they have left office. It is up to Lord Timpson, his boss Shabana Mahmood and ultimately Sir Keir Starmer to do the right thing while they can.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.
