Is it perhaps worth noting that, whilst obviously no vandalism should go uncondemned (well... little vandalism should), and whilst obviously this is an attack worthy of investigation...
the 2,000 year old tree is actually not quite 60? And the original was cut down less than 400 years ago, although not by much, and a cutting regrew the tree, in a manner that should be fully repeatable? The Daily Mail's senseless-outrage capabilities, by manipulating the story and telling half-truths (see also, "It was anti-Christians what did it!" in the headline; no evidence or even bringing-up of this idea in the article), are strong...
no subject
the 2,000 year old tree is actually not quite 60? And the original was cut down less than 400 years ago, although not by much, and a cutting regrew the tree, in a manner that should be fully repeatable? The Daily Mail's senseless-outrage capabilities, by manipulating the story and telling half-truths (see also, "It was anti-Christians what did it!" in the headline; no evidence or even bringing-up of this idea in the article), are strong...