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.

Can’t believe we’re now at the point where posters are suggesting sentencing guidelines ought to be revised downwards to align with society’s values. Some values and some society where we’re arguing for leniency for destroying values things.

There are quite a lot of us who make up society who are more than happy that there are penalties and deterrents against this kind of thing, actually. This wasn’t a bit of minor damage committed spur of the moment - it was the carefully planned destruction of something known to be important to many people. Maybe the fact they didn’t just get a slap on the wrist will tell future vandals that actually you can’t just go around unilaterally deciding to make everyone’s environment worse and get away with it.

Given the lack of prison places, they'll go wherever there is space.

Well, thats where we differ, i don't think Criminal damage to a tree & a dry stone wall is at the "highest level" and certainly not deserving of a 4 year sentence.

It is at the highest level of stupidity though, especially if you go boasting about it on FB and send text messages to each other - maybe jail them for that?

You are correct. I did prison medical for 7 years. They have their own wings in normal prisons.

Another poster up thread has advised there are also exclusively sex offender prisons so it's a mixture.

"Had Robin Hood not been filmed there, no one would have even heard of the place.
Its hardly the Pyramids is it? The wall suffered minimal damage, its a very small dry stone wall, the type of which is found all over many landscapes around the UK."
As I walked this section last year, I can tell you that Hadrian's Wall, of which the tree was part of, is a very well known historical site. (and A Unesco World Heritage Site). There is a footpath alongside, and hundreds must walk the entire path each year; it seemed to me to be hundreds on the day I was there.
The tree was situated in a dip, and yes, a gap in the wall, known as Sycamore Gap for a reason.

The film was shot in 1991, prior to that, it wasn't anything like as popular, it only became a World Heritage site in 1987.

Meanwhile, the teenage boy near me who killed an old man in a park only got a couple more years and the disgusting girl who egged him on filming basically got nothing.

It's a fucking joke

I think it’s sad that you consider your historical monuments to be lesser than those in other countries. I think they’re exactly comparable. Also, I am from the area and can assure you it was important to us long before Robin Hood was filmed there. It is and always was an important local icon- please don’t minimise the impact it’s had on the community.

You keep minimising the damage. It wasn’t just a ‘dry stone wall’, it is a UNESCO world heritage site which is over 1900 years old and attracts over 100,000 visitors every year. It is not the same as someone knocking down a garden wall just as someone throwing soup on the Mona Lisa is not the same as someone throwing soup on my lovely hallway picture bought at Ikea.

The wall suffered minimal damage, its a very small dry stone wall, the type of which is found all over many landscapes around the UK.

Is the part of the wall in question just a bog-standard dry wall replacement? I don’t remember reading this and photos of the damage show what looks like typical section of the Roman wall.

If you’re talking about Hadrian’s Wall more generally, this is categorically wrong.

Got some figures for that?

This.

Someone with sense at last!

Prisons should indeed be for serious offences, not tree loppers and grey stone wall damagers

Absolutely thinks Hadrian’s Wall is of a type found all over the country.

Safe to say they aren’t talking with sense.

It didn't prior to the film.

Only given WH status in 1987.

Its a dry stone wall, much of which has been removed over the centuries to build houses etc, then replaced, esp from the 19thC onwards.

To compare it to the Pyramids or the Mona Lisa etc is ridiculous, there wasn't even a continuous path, so whilst known about, it was little visited or a tourist attraction, the path was completed until the early 2000s.

Still waiting for some evidence. I suspect it might be a very long wait.

As someone from the North East who has visited Hadrian’s Wall many times (including school trips prior to 1987) it categorically is more than just a dry stone wall and certainly was culturally important prior to any film. Thankfully UNESCO don’t agree with your myopic views.

Absolutely, you’re absolutely wrong.

It isn’t a drystone wall in the sense of the drystone walls you find all over the country, for starters. And your description above misleadingly suggests that most of what you see today isn’t original. Restoration work used original stones and today, at least, original techniques as far as possible. Which is why you can’t just have some bloke you found via checkatrade fix it as was suggested above.

Much of the Colosseum was also taken for construction in previous centuries and it has undergone modern restoration - very visible when you visit. Which is entirely normal for sites of this age and doesn’t negate their value.

The wall is of huge importance and we’re still learning about it and making new discoveries. To suggest it has only minor significance is pure ignorance.

It did, actually. The wall attracted about 100000 visitors a year prior to becoming a WH site - it’s now over 750000 per year.

@CorbyTrouserPress - my family is from the north east. The wall was a staple of family visits and there are photos of very young me there in my gift shop plastic legionary’s helmet that certainly pre-date 87!

'Its a dry stone wall, much of which has been removed over the centuries to build houses etc, then replaced, esp from the 19thC onwards'

Exactly. Much like loads of other trees had been lopped to preserve views of the very unimpressive wall <yes I've seen it>.

It is a wall and a tree. This 'monumental site' is not up there with the coloseum by any stretch of a fevered imagination.

Yes but there are still different categories of prison and some are open prisons not suitable

abyway given the boundaries of legislation which judges cannot overrule it was fine

So historical sites are only important to you if they are impressive to look at?

What’s your opinion on Stonehenge? Just a load of unimpressive rocks in a field perhaps?

So numbers increased by over 7 fold, after it was made a WH site.... point made.

15m visit the Pyramids each year.

Stonehenge is original or as much as it possibly can be known to be and is far older than a Roman era wall

Hadrian's wall is a dry stone wall, the tree, around 150years old of which there are millions in the UK.

Sycamores are very fast growing, within 30 or 40 years, they'll be a decent sized one in its place.

Loads of other trees had already been lopped to preserve the unimpressive view! Bit contrary to get so worked up in this one tree imo.

If they'd been groups of stonehenges all dismantled to make way for views like we had with the Northumberland 'monument' I'd say the same.

The view is unimpressive aswell now.

There’s loads of ‘unimpressive’ landmarks in the world, just because you find them unattractive doesn’t mean they are not culturally significant.