Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

4 yrs for cutting down tree, no jail time for rape

464 replies

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 19:45

Why are 2 men being given custodial sentences for cutting down a tree when men convicted of rape regularly get suspended sentences.

Is an important tree more important than a random woman! Justice system seems to think so.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 23:01

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 23:00

You've gone a bit sweaty and confrontational

That’s not an answer.

EarthwormJem · 15/07/2025 23:00

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:58

Not my intention, agree possibly poor wording.

You do seem massively upset by the suggestion sentencing for crimes against women should be higher than crimes against trees or property

No, you're just flailing and, to deflect from your dimwittery, are insinuating that other people are somehow rape apopologists or supporters.

Pretty disgusting for you to use rape victims like that.

Thingyfanding · 15/07/2025 23:00

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:34

I'm genuinely very fond of trees. I was pretty raging when a neighbour cut one of mine down a couple of years ago.

Not as raging as I'd have been if she'd sexually assaulted me though oddly enough...

I’ve been raped, and the trauma still affects me but I’ve found deep comfort and healing in nature. Trees, in particular, bring me peace - touching one can help calm my nervous system. They’re more than just beautiful; they clean our air and are essential to all life on Earth.
The individuals responsible for cutting down the sycamore tree needed to be held accountable to send a clear message that such acts won’t be tolerated
I fully support the sentence given. It sets an important precedent and raises awareness about the legal protections trees have, like TPOs, which too many people are unaware of. We must treat trees with the respect they deserve.

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 23:00

CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:59

How do I seem ‘massively upset’ exactly?

You've gone a bit sweaty and confrontational

OP posts:
Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 23:00

CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:58

No, you mentioned a conviction from the English courts, why would you be comparing that to sentencing guidelines in another country? That makes even less sense. Using your logic you might as well have said ‘is it right that the men who cut down the Sycamore tree got four years whereas convicted rapists often get stoned to death’

Totally batshit.

I actually think those comparisons are more proportionate

OP posts:
CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:59

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:58

Not my intention, agree possibly poor wording.

You do seem massively upset by the suggestion sentencing for crimes against women should be higher than crimes against trees or property

How do I seem ‘massively upset’ exactly?

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:58

CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:54

You said rape, not sexual assaults. Don’t twist your bullshit to try and prove a point that isn’t there.

Not my intention, agree possibly poor wording.

You do seem massively upset by the suggestion sentencing for crimes against women should be higher than crimes against trees or property

OP posts:
CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:58

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:52

Did I? Did I mention England?

No, you mentioned a conviction from the English courts, why would you be comparing that to sentencing guidelines in another country? That makes even less sense. Using your logic you might as well have said ‘is it right that the men who cut down the Sycamore tree got four years whereas convicted rapists often get stoned to death’

Totally batshit.

CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:54

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:51

Do you think the idea that serious sexual assault carried a suspended sentence while people get a custodial sentence for cutting down a tree makes sense?

You said rape, not sexual assaults. Don’t twist your bullshit to try and prove a point that isn’t there.

Thisshirtisonfire · 15/07/2025 22:53

Well I don't think it's either or. I'm glad those men got 4 years.
I'd also like to see more men actually get convicted for the sexual assault and rapes they do.. then actually get proper time for it.

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:52

CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:51

But you felt confident enough to (incorrectly) claim you knew about English sentencing guidelines in your original post? Maybe in future check you are correct before you spout your incorrect bullshit.

Did I? Did I mention England?

OP posts:
Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:51

CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:45

Don’t fucking start with that shit. I’m not downplaying anything so don’t start with the baseless accusations. I’m pointing out that your original post stating rapists regularly get suspended sentences is utter horseshit.

Do you think the idea that serious sexual assault carried a suspended sentence while people get a custodial sentence for cutting down a tree makes sense?

OP posts:
CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:51

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:43

I don't live in England, I'm from 1 UK country and live in another and neither is England.

But you felt confident enough to (incorrectly) claim you knew about English sentencing guidelines in your original post? Maybe in future check you are correct before you spout your incorrect bullshit.

samarrange · 15/07/2025 22:51

GreenCandleWax · 15/07/2025 22:21

And he will be out before 5 years is up - why we have half sentences mystifies me.
Our society does not value women's right not to be attacked, and jail sentences reflect the general sexism we live under.

why we have half sentences mystifies me.

It is at least partly because society is not prepared to build, fund, and staff the number of prisons that would be required.

There are about 100,000 people in prison in the UK. That could be very easily doubled if sentences weren't halved, and trebled if the courts worked better, and if some community sentences became custodial (sometimes I gasp when I see violent offenders getting 120 hours or whatever of graveyard gardening or whatever it is they do). But it would come at a phenomenal cost. Keeping someone in prison costs about £45,000 per year. So an extra 200,000 prisoners would be £9 billion. It's also not clear where the 50,000 or so prison officers that you'd need would come from - it's probably not many people's first choice of job.

At some point we need to face up to the fact that there are a hell of a lot of criminals out there. Over 12 million UK residents have a criminal record (about a third of men and 10% of women) and probably a million of those have been in prison at some stage. The UK already has one of the highest incarceration rates in Europe.

New figures confirm more than 12.5 million people in the UK have a criminal record - Unlock

https://unlock.org.uk/new-figures-confirm-more-than-12-5-million-people-in-the-uk-have-a-criminal-record/

EarthwormJem · 15/07/2025 22:51

KaleQueen · 15/07/2025 22:37

Yes - and caused some minor damage.

A wall?

I think you meant "just a pile of rocks" (like Stonehenge).

KaleQueen · 15/07/2025 22:47

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:43

😱 damage to a wall? If only there had been a convenient woman for it to fall on

🙄

prelovedusername · 15/07/2025 22:47

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:41

I mean you ARE literally saying it. You are literally saying the tree is more important than human women.

And I genuinely think you're right, I think that's how the men in charge rate things in their head. The value they automatically placed on 'very important historic tree' is way more than that they place on 'meh any old women, plenty more, that one was probably trashy/drunk/used goods.... Anyway...'

It's the way they add value to that damage when planning an appropriate sentence. I really do think it's relevant to look at sentencing for less violent crimes compared to sentencing for crimes against specifically girls and women.

I’m not saying that because obviously it isn’t true, but I was trying to show how much value the tree might have. As a pp said, it was a much loved tree where people scattered ashes of their loved ones. It was more than just a tree.

CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:45

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:33

Why are you so invested in downplaying sexual assaults?

Don’t fucking start with that shit. I’m not downplaying anything so don’t start with the baseless accusations. I’m pointing out that your original post stating rapists regularly get suspended sentences is utter horseshit.

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:43

KaleQueen · 15/07/2025 22:37

Yes - and caused some minor damage.

😱 damage to a wall? If only there had been a convenient woman for it to fall on

OP posts:
Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 15/07/2025 22:43

Priorities, priorities. It’s a beautiful tree. Women are as beautiful as a tree but we can’t possibly send the men who rape them to gaol.

Councils are always chopping down beautiful trees. I say….send them all to gaol too. Let’s fill the prisons with tree killers!!!!

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:43

CorbyTrouserPress · 15/07/2025 22:41

It’s a shame you didn’t find that legislation before claiming that men regularly get suspended sentences for rape. The average sentence for rape in England is 10 years. I think that’s far too lenient. I also think that most of your posts show an obvious lack of understanding of the English Courts work and your stating of incorrect ‘facts’ was actually detrimental to your argument.

There is no such thing as an accidental assault.

I don't live in England, I'm from 1 UK country and live in another and neither is England.

OP posts:
sanityisamyth · 15/07/2025 22:42

Dangermoo · 15/07/2025 20:03

I feel sorry for the poor tree, not this riff-raff.

This.

KaleQueen · 15/07/2025 22:42

2024onwardsandup · 15/07/2025 22:41

It was a tree. Sad sure but the actual impact on any individual was none, the impact on the national interest zero. It’s a shame. That’s it.

Incorrect. Go read judges remarks.

LucasBuck · 15/07/2025 22:42

YABU. 4 years for felling that tree was reasonable imo - the judge must have believed they knew exactly what they were doing and what they were destroying. It needed to be a deterrent against others knowingly destroying ancient monuments.

But I do agree that rapists should get far far longer than 4 years, it’s appalling and makes me feel sick that many don’t, let alone suspended sentences 😡 But I don’t think we can equate the two. Yes, rape and sexual crimes can be notoriously hard to prosecute/prove but people also seem to get ridiculously low sentences for other violent life-altering crimes like GBH too - it’s sadly just the terrible state of the justice system which too often seems to prioritise the offenders mental health and background over the victims imo.

Maybe the focus needs to be on voting for parties that say they will create more prison spaces, so every criminal - whether destroyer of ancient monuments or violent thug or rapist has a better chance of getting a longer sentence 🤷‍♀️

Barnbrack · 15/07/2025 22:41

prelovedusername · 15/07/2025 22:39

Why compare? Rape sentencing is all over the place, no argument there.

The tree was a historic monument. It had value. You could argue that it took a lot longer to grow that tree than a woman, of which there are plenty. That’s not what I’m saying, before the thread explodes, just that it’s a logical argument.

I mean you ARE literally saying it. You are literally saying the tree is more important than human women.

And I genuinely think you're right, I think that's how the men in charge rate things in their head. The value they automatically placed on 'very important historic tree' is way more than that they place on 'meh any old women, plenty more, that one was probably trashy/drunk/used goods.... Anyway...'

It's the way they add value to that damage when planning an appropriate sentence. I really do think it's relevant to look at sentencing for less violent crimes compared to sentencing for crimes against specifically girls and women.

OP posts: