Pair guilty of cutting down Sycamore Gap tree

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by peanut

You've said it yourself. Explain why the need for it to be a public appeasement if it was 'just' a tree?

If you read up on my earlier post I’m not saying that the tree doesn’t hold significance.

Justify why someone who is convicted of a violent offence can be given bail until sentencing , however for this offence the pair are remanded. Because after a quick Google


‘Remand before sentencing, or custodial remand, should be used as a last resort, only when there are compelling reasons to believe the defendant will not appear for court or might pose a danger to the public if released. Specifically, a judge might remand someone in custody if they believe the defendant is likely to abscond, commit further offenses while on bail, or might interfere with witnesses or the course of justice’

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Another reality check…

In Medieval England, trespass against the vert, meaning harming or damaging the forest's vegetation, carried severe penalties, including fines, mutilation, and even death, depending on the severity of the offense. Punishments for disrupting the forest's natural state varied significantly, with fines being common for minor infractions and more severe punishments, such as blinding or cutting off limbs, for those who disturbed deer or boar

further reality check it's 2025

[peanut]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

If you read up on my earlier post I’m not saying that the tree doesn’t hold significance.

Justify why someone who is convicted of a violent offence can be given bail until sentencing , however for this offence the pair are remanded. Because after a quick Google


‘Remand before sentencing, or custodial remand, should be used as a last resort, only when there are compelling reasons to believe the defendant will not appear for court or might pose a danger to the public if released. Specifically, a judge might remand someone in custody if they believe the defendant is likely to abscond, commit further offenses while on bail, or might interfere with witnesses or the course of justice’

The law basically. Destruction of anything of value over £5k could be imprisonment for up to 10 years. Which kinds makes it a serious offence.

One of the 'idiots' wanted to be put on remand for their own protection.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So everybody that cuts down a tree should be prosecuted in the same way?
The reactions are disproportionate to the act.
Nothing special about a tree at the bottom of a valley.
Still nowhere near a valuation of over £600,000.
Compare that with £10,000 of damage to a Van Gogh painting.
Nobody would have an overnight hotel stay just to get a selfie with it.

well protected trees yes. There are laws on cutting down trees too. Do you advocate law breaking on open forum?

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I don’t think anyone thinks it’s ok that anyone cut down a tree nor the fact that there was also damage to Hadrians Wall due to the felling.

However, I’d like anyone to justify why they should be held on remand until sentencing? Its been done as a public appeasement rather than anything else

do you know these persons history?? their record?

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Reality check

To build the Royal Navy's ships, particularly during the late 1700s and early 1800s, an estimated 1.2 million oak trees were felled. This was primarily for constructing ships of the line, with a large ship like HMS Victory needing around 6,000 trees.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

further reality check it's 2025

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

well protected trees yes. There are laws on cutting down trees too. Do you advocate law breaking on open forum?

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------



do you know these persons history?? their record?

No, do you ? Your point holds no relevance whatsoever as many people that are convicted of violent or sexual offences are granted bail before their sentencing hearing

The limited availability of prison places would suggest that those convicted of the most serious offences should be remanded. Unless of course you think that two counts of criminal damage is more serious than sexual assault/manslaughter etc. ?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

No, do you ? Your point holds no relevance whatsoever as many people that are convicted of violent or sexual offences are granted bail before their sentencing hearing

The limited availability of prison places would suggest that those convicted of the most serious offences should be remanded. Unless of course you think that two counts of criminal damage is more serious than sexual assault/manslaughter etc. ?

No but I simply do not make assumptions and jump to conclusions without evidence.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

No, do you ? Your point holds no relevance whatsoever as many people that are convicted of violent or sexual offences are granted bail before their sentencing hearing

The limited availability of prison places would suggest that those convicted of the most serious offences should be remanded. Unless of course you think that two counts of criminal damage is more serious than sexual assault/manslaughter etc. ?

The answer to your question is in the link in the OP.

Jurors took about five hours to reach their verdicts with both men remanded into custody for their "own protection" ahead of sentencing on 15 July.

I have read elsewhere additionally that for one of them there is a flight risk.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

well protected trees yes. There are laws on cutting down trees too. Do you advocate law breaking on open forum?

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------



do you know these persons history?? their record?

Where somebody else cuts down a tree, protected or not, it might just about make local news. It wouldn't make national news and wouldn't be valued at over £600,000. Any record they might or might not have is irrelevant.
Just a massive unjustifiable over-reaction.

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The answer to your question is in the link in the OP.



I have read elsewhere additionally that for one of them there is a flight risk.

Why would they need protection? If they do, then arrest those attacking and harassing them.That especially includes the media.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where somebody else cuts down a tree, protected or not, it might just about make local news. It wouldn't make national news and wouldn't be valued at over £600,000. Any record they might or might not have is irrelevant.
Just a massive unjustifiable over-reaction.

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------


Why would they need protection? If they do, then arrest those attacking and harassing them.That especially includes the media.

I disagree so lets draw a line there

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

The answer to your question is in the link in the OP.



I have read elsewhere additionally that for one of them there is a flight risk.

Yup thanks i went back and reread. If the judge believes that the pair are at risk from retaliation or vendetta action from the public then imho that’s a bigger issue than the tree being chopped down in the first place

Wasn’t aware of the flight risk

[thenry]

In their defence did they make clear money doesn't grow on trees should a fine of some sort be levied against them

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Do you think it is ok these guys went and cut down the tree?

No, thats never been in question.

The massive over reaction is the issue.

I really don't like the idea that anyone should think that cutting down a landmark oak tree is neither here nor there. Oak trees are rather special historically because of our naval history and the fact it takes so much time for an oak tree to grow to such a size as this should have afforded it some respect. I don't understand what was going through the mind of these two idiots except perhaps a reliance on too much alcohol.

The act was disrespectful and does require some sort of measured response or we could face people just chopping down and defacing our natural landmark trees and destroying other historical treasures just for fun. It was vandalism of the worst sort.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy

I really don't like the idea that anyone should think that cutting down a landmark oak tree is neither here nor there. Oak trees are rather special historically because of our naval history and the fact it takes so much time for an oak tree to grow to such a size as this should have afforded it some respect. I don't understand what was going through the mind of these two idiots except perhaps a reliance on too much alcohol.

The act was disrespectful and does require some sort of measured response or we could face people just chopping down and defacing our natural landmark trees and destroying other historical treasures just for fun. It was vandalism of the worst sort.

I thought it was a sycamore tree