these men aren’t a danger to the public and aren’t likely to do it again, there is no legitimate reason for a prison sentence
just give them a very long period of community service, maybe tree relatedWas there a statement from either of them on why? I know why is really the hardest answer to get from someone but did they just hate the tree. Did their sisters turn down a marriage proposal from them at that site?
Cool, now do the same for Water Company executives that shit all over our nature as well.
nope. only for charismatic megaflora/fauna
nope. only for
charismatic megaflora/faunathe poors.FTFY
Very, very, very harsh. Too harsh.
Would love to see just a single one of the besuited cunts who are polluting our rivers and air get this kind of treatment by their mates in the courts. Never gonna happen tho - this has been a rich man’s world for centuries.
From what I understand, they really fucked around the court and lied about it which is why the sentence is harsh. If they had just admitted it, they probably would have got a suspended sentence.
i disagree with this being too harsh, but do agree with the second point about wishing to see this type of punishment extended to the industrial villains, who will never see it, deserving this type of punishment.
We’re in the middle of a prison crisis. We don’t have room for people who chopped down a tree, even if it was a really pretty one.
That’s fair. I understand the frustration and anger at these two and what they did - it was senseless and I was definitely a bit heartbroken to read about the felling at first - but four years is so long and they’re going to come out worse for it, in my opinion.
Not that they had much going for them to begin with. Maybe when they get out they’ll use their brains to do something constructive
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2dlr05rr1lo
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/anglian-water-fined-300-000-after-pollution-killed-5-000-fish
Not one CEO properly held accountable by the law (I could have listed another 30 different cases easily. Just searching polluted river and killed fish fined uk)
“this kind of treatment” meaning harsh sentences. Fining a company means very little 🤷♂️
My point was that individuals have been responsible for a lot worse, but never held accountable. It didn’t have to be rivers and fish. I could have linked to the endless other articles referring to the destruction of something. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmjj5gl6m0po
Councils are constantly cutting down trees. https://inews.co.uk/news/trees-felled-uk-councils-10-years-3229184?ito=link_share_article-top
Oh right, I read your comment as sarcastic but it seems like we’re saying the exact same thing.
4 years!
Of course it’s fucked up and whatever, but this feels like a populist sentence. 4 years is an incredibly long time. In what way is this adequate for the crime. Like mentioned before, there is infinite damage being done to nature in the name of business, very rarely somebody is getting a little bit of blowback, and these two guys, who really don’t have much potential to destroy anything more are sent away as an example? To whom? The generally misbehaving public?
In what way is this adequate for the crime
What is the maximum sentence for damage of public property?
Cool yeah, let’s have short sentences for destroying cultural landmarks. I’m sure that’ll be fine.
We both know that these men will, unfortunately, be out far sooner than 4 years time.
They shouldn’t be inside at all. We don’t have the prison space to spend on things like this. It should be dealt with in the community.
Get them in the stocks to be pelted by tomatoes by the community
Not quite what I was thinking, but better than 4 years a piece.
I.e. translating to no real punishment. For permanently destroying a historically significant site.
I’m sure there would be zero repercussions from that.
Jesus Christ, I am immensely thankful you aren’t a judge or legislator.
a 150 year sentence for killing a 150 year old tree would be nice
Given a sycamore can like for 500 years although 300 is more common.
If that the maths we follow. Potential life lost to the tree of 350 years is more reasonable.
Multiply by 2.5 given the celebrity status of the tree.
Definitely not harsh enough. They should have gotten AT LEAST 12 years each. And even that could never make up the damage they have done. 12 is too mild, 4 entirely laughable.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about
Of course this is nonwithstanding other environmental crimes should be prosecuted, just as hard.
