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

[Barnbrack]

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.

I assume you’re not from the area? I am. It would have been better if they’d simply taken a chainsaw to the Angel of the North because at least that could be remade. The tree was absolutely iconic for people from the area but also for many from round the world too and it cannot be simply replaced. Perhaps more to the point, they damaged Hadrian’s Wall. If it were the Syphinx or the Sistine Chapel or the Great Wall of China would you not think they were deserving of punishment? Their actions were disgraceful, damaging of both the environment and of a historical monument and were deeply upsetting to a lot of people, myself included. They wilfully damaged my heritage and then lied about it, costing valuable police resources and money. It was not ‘just a tree’.

Both crimes deserve to spend time in prison.
Convictions for sexual assault are extremely poor, victims are put on trial, if they're lucky enough to make it to court

I agree with op. It’s an insult to victims of rape and sexual assault. Google Michael Linfoot, Thomas Rae and Callum Hesketh if you think sex attackers are being punished properly. The three of them live streamed a sex attack of a school girl in a van and the three of them walked away with suspended sentences.

So true. It was stupid, drunken behaviour. They should have been punished, but only when all the rapists and pedophiles are jailed, who predominately target females. Did you see that serial rapist on 24 hours in police custody who got ten years for multiple druggings and rapes. That means he will do about five years. Five years for god knows how many rapes. As a society, our mass silence that we have to hide our anger in the name of a civilised society, means we are just bystanders in the repeated abuse and oppression of our gender.

Yes, we shouldn't give a shit about nature or vandalism because rape exists 🙄

Orrrrr sentences should be proportionate to actual harm caused....

Some of us think it was

I think it was too lenient personally.

What a stupid click bait thread. Conviction for rape carries a minimum sentence so OP is incorrect. I've looked at the links and they refer to sexual assault, not rape. Yes conviction rates are low and sentences are too light but if you are trying to bring about change you'd need to know what the words rape and conviction actually mean. This whole thread just makes the OP look stupid.

What a stupid click bait thread. Conviction for rape carries a minimum sentence so OP is incorrect. I've looked at the links and they refer to sexual assault, not rape. Yes conviction rates are low and sentences are too light but if you are trying to bring about change you'd need to know what the words rape and conviction actually mean. This whole thread just makes the OP look stupid.

We’re here because you brought us here. You were the one who started this absurd debate.

Have you read any of the transcripts coming out around this about the impact it has had on the national trust, locals etc or the reasoning the judge had for sentencing

because it did emotionally and financially have an impact that I suggest you look at - just because it doesn’t impact you doesn’t mean others aren’t affected

and let’s be honest being drunk shouldn’t be a good defence at any time but certainly not when something you can just do accidentally

we do have a real issue with the laws and implementation and sentencing (often by male judges)

that doesn’t make this sentence (by as an aside a female judge) wrong or incorrect because within the guidelines for criminal damage it is to to me appropriate

So you think this sentence of 4 yes in prison is proportionate to cutting down a tree that is literally growing back?

So you are saying you think cutting down a tree should carry a higher sentence than sexual assault?

The poster literally just said ‘sentences are too light’ so evidently not.

Agreed.
Rapists deserve prison time, noone disputes that.
The two tree fellers carried out such a niche crime, pled not guilty to the end and with several aggregating factors and needed to be made an example of that prison had to be the answer. This does not make other crimes less important.

Yes. See my above post- I explain very clearly

Totally agree. It's a tree. The hysteria surrounding it seems to have driven the sentencing. Death by dangerous driving gets far less of a sentence.

But you are comparing two separate things - they have different guidelines

a discussion of where this fits on the criminal damage sentencing (max 10 years) is a valid one

No one is saying that conviction rates or sentencing for sexual assault and rape are anywhere near what they should be

but this is separate

A few shoots off a large stump like that won't amount to anything close to what it used to be.

Will you pay more taxes to pay for them?

@Barnbrack have you read any of the transcripts around this or the sentencing hearing yesterday or the guidelines and definition of criminal damage?

To say, 'Its just a tree', is like saying Buckinham Palace is just a load of bricks.
The tree is iconic in the local area. The actual location of the tree is known as 'sycamore gap' for a reason. (gap in Hadrian's Wall).
Local people have photographed the tree is various settings (different light, different times of year); local people have painted the tree, from all different aspects; it features on calanders, paintings, birthday cards, etc. It has featured in a major Hollywood Film. One could argue that it has become integral to the local economy.
The tree would have taken many years to have grown in that style.
The tree is on land belonging to the National Trust, so not theirs to cut down, and the men do not come from the local area.
The sentence is justified to deter others.
I walked past the tree stump last year, and they ask people to keep away, as the tree may not be dead. However, saplings growing from the tree are not going to look like the original tree in anyway.

Just a tree

They weren't drunk, it was a planned act with chainsaws etc. They pretended they were drunk as a defence and even the judge said drunkeness was highly unlikely. Things can have value which isn't monetary