Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Two absolute brain-dead morons have been found guilty of felling the venerable sycamore tree that used to stand in the gap between two promontories next to the ancient Cumbrian monument of Hadrian’s Wall, and there has been much media phone-in sturm und drang and gnashing of teeth about what should happen to the two fuck-witted perpetrators when sentence is pronounced - oddly not until July.

At least one phone-in outraged guy on LBC this morning was insistent that they should be given 10 years each in chokey (which apart from anything else would cost the public purse, and our already congested prison system, hundreds of thousands of pounds). But, really ? For chopping down a tree? Albeit an “iconic” tree. Nobody was hurt or killed. There was a bit of damage, but not that much other than the loss of a quite beautiful tree.

I can understand why people are outraged and angry at these wankers. I was myself, when I heard the news.

But if our justice system has to be something better than just concerned with retribution, shouldn’t we be looking at a sentence that affords reparation, and maybe a degree of rehabilitation?

Wouldn’t several thousand hours of community service - possibly, appropriately, tree - planting, be much better ?

Kind of baffled by all the coverage about this tree tbh. It's only claim to fame seems to be that it was in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.

Well that settles it. Hang the bastards!

Cut their hearts out. With a spoon.

A blunt rusty spoon.

And that's just for looking like Reform candidates.

How many other trees have had Kevin Costner and Michael Wincott beating the shit out of each other under their branches while Morgan Freeman looks on?

Dalem Lake wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 8:01 pm Kind of baffled by all the coverage about this tree tbh. It's only claim to fame seems to be that it was in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.

Every so often a crime gets a disproportionate amount of coverage because it appals Middle England - stealing a charity box, vandalising a flower bed or similar. At this point it becomes impossible to give a just sentence because it'll never be enough for some.

Wiv the angles.

( https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... camore-gap )

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 11:26 pm A blunt rusty spoon.

And that's just for looking like Reform candidates.

My husband's horrified that the older one's the same age as him. They both look twenty years older.

Samanfur wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 2:17 pm

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 11:26 pm A blunt rusty spoon.

And that's just for looking like Reform candidates.

My husband's horrified that the older one's the same age as him. They both look twenty years older.

The younger one looks like somebody who exists on an exclusive diet of crayons.

I think community service like clearing dog turds up is probably suitable punishment.

But I have noticed this with other stories like this, the BBC 6pm news covered that old tree being cleared by a Toby Carvery. Yes it’s possibly a story but not on the main news and doesn’t need 3 days and a reporter on the scene on day three.

Here's a thing - and this might be just a more general question about legal/judicial logistics or technicalities.

The two morons that cut down the "iconic" tree were on trial for having done so. At the trial, their defence was, in essence, that they didn't do it, they weren't even there at the time, and they'd never even countenance doing anything like it.

But they definitely did do it, and were found in court to have done so. So, when they said that they didn't and weren't there, they were clearly lying. Lying to a court of law is an offence - it is defined as perjury.

So how come the morons, or indeed anyone found guilty in a trial of a crime that they claimed not to have committed (and therefore lied about) are not additionally convicted of perjury - on top of the offence they're convicted of ?

Is that not accounted for in the judge's remarks and sentencing?

"Alright, OK, I did a stupid" will generally get a lighter punishment than "Go on, prove it...ah, bollocks."

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 11:53 am Is that not accounted for in the judge's remarks and sentencing?

Yes it is.

Yes, I rather thought so. But it still isn't classed as perjury, even though, by any definition, it clearly is.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 11:31 am Here's a thing - and this might be just a more general question about legal/judicial logistics or technicalities.

The two morons that cut down the "iconic" tree were on trial for having done so. At the trial, their defence was, in essence, that they didn't do it, they weren't even there at the time, and they'd never even countenance doing anything like it.

But they definitely did do it, and were found in court to have done so. So, when they said that they didn't and weren't there, they were clearly lying. Lying to a court of law is an offence - it is defined as perjury.

So how come the morons, or indeed anyone found guilty in a trial of a crime that they claimed not to have committed (and therefore lied about) are not additionally convicted of perjury - on top of the offence they're convicted of ?

As per Chorus (10cc from 1977).

I've often thought that, and my guess is that it would fail the 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria.

The best example I can think of was Jonathan Aitken, who perjured himself during his trial of the libel action that he ill-advisedly brought against The Grauniad, but the Grauniad had evidence that had him bang to rights. They threw the book at him, as I recall. Something similar happened with Jeffrey Archer, too, I think.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 1:01 pm Th best example I can think of was Jonathan Aitken, who perjured himself during his trial of the libel action that he ill-advisedly brought against The Grauniad, but the Grauniad had evidence that had him bang to rights. They threw the book at him, as I recall. Something similar happened with Jeffrey Archer, too, I think.

That'll be Libel as a civil suit, whereas perjury in HM's Courts elevates things to a criminal matter.

I haven't a single legal qualification, and don't even watch courtroom dramas.
But I think there are two potential reasons why Judges don't double down on perjury.
* It may be set aside, being considered a lesser crime than the actual charges found guilty.
* It may be considered a waste of time to further prosecute the toerag for telling porkies when he's already facing a hefty tariff.
* If you adhere to the "It's just a game for them" school of thought, then denying the defendant the right to dissemble might be considered unsporting. "Top shithousery eh lads".
* In a moment of self awareness, the law may recognise its own imperfections, and conclude its role is to try the charges before a jury - and not to assess absolute facts. (ie the guilty defendant might have been telling the truth)

A friend of mine lost his wife when they were rear-ended in their classic car and thrown into a ditch. The cunt who did this tried all the "prove I was there" shit and every time he came for trial, he played the mental health card.

In the end he got twelve years - the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is fourteen. Whether he got twelve years because it warranted it or the judge got fed up with it all, I'll never know. Even my mate's barrister was surprised at the severity of the sentence.