23 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I think it's just become a running joke that he gets blamed for everything now, irrespective of whether the issue at hand has got anything to do with him. . 

A bit like how poeple used to say tit at something and say 'Brexit Britain' or 'Thatcher's Britain' with their to to tongues planted firmly in their cheeks. 

Starmer was blamed in a few threads on Twitter, one person asked how he could still be in job after this when all Boris did was to eat a piece of cake. 

3 minutes ago, Casino said:

While ive some sympathy with that, when do we lock vandals up

Smashing up statues?

Jailing people for cutting trees down when we know folk have gotten off with a slap on the wrist for far a lot worse is all a bit backwards to me. 

I reckon Boris ate more than one piece of cake!

He was on Ozempic early doors iirc.

Just now, royal white said:

Jailing people for cutting trees down when we know folk have gotten off with a slap on the wrist for far a lot worse is all a bit backwards to me. 

Cmon...when is it time to lock up vandals?

11 minutes ago, royal white said:

I get that, but jail, especially a 4 year term is way too excessive in my eyes. I’d have them on some kind of community project for 10 years (a full 10 years) planting trees in all weathers .

Fair enough. 

We all have our own idea about what punishments we'd meet out for various crimes, if we were in charge. 

There's just something about this one that touched a raw nerve with me. 

I was going to say bring back the birch. That would have a certain poetic justice about it.

Corporal punishment....discuss

 

3 minutes ago, Ani said:

Starmer was blamed in a few threads on Twitter, one person asked how he could still be in job after this when all Boris did was to eat a piece of cake. 

Searing political insight 😁

2 minutes ago, Casino said:

Cmon...when is it time to lock up vandals?

When there’s space in jails. 10 years planting trees (for these 2) would be a better punishment 

16 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Not with you on this one. 

I think you have to be an utter cretin to go and do something like that. Drive miles out of your way to cut down a tree. Just because you know that lots of people like that tree. 

If they even stood to gain something from it then I'd have probably been able to understand it a bit more. If it was for financial gain for example. 

It's the fact that they did it just to be a pair of obnoxious cunts that really riles me. 2 years is about right I think. 

Weirdly - it was the same feeling of anger I had when ISIS were destroying centuries old temples in Iraq etc, albeit on a much lower level 😁

The arrogance of it. I hate things like that. 

I am worryingly in agreement with @royal white on this one. What they did was the act of a pair of obnoxious cunts, but I could list a number of other crimes committed by obnoxious cunts that attract lesser sentences.
A few weeks ago I was saying that Tice was a prick for suggesting that appealing sentences should be reviewed if enough people challenge it. But is cutting down a well known beautiful tree a more serious crime than cutting down a less well known tree ? 

 

1 minute ago, Casino said:

Corporal punishment....discuss

 

Yes - but only under circumstances where they all have to be brought before me and I get to make the decision like some kind of king. 

I wouldn't trust anybody to have the staggeringly insightful level of judgement that I have on all matters of import 😁

1 minute ago, royal white said:

Jailing people for cutting trees down when we know folk have gotten off with a slap on the wrist for far a lot worse is all a bit backwards to me. 

There does seem to be an element of grandstanding at times with some of these sentences. 

No problem with the heavy punishment for the tree- not because it was a tree per se- but because it is shocking vandalism.

There have been many a case (one recently) where poeple have had them cut down deliberately, despite preservation orders, and simply paid the fine.

It might make them think twice I suppose, but that level of sentence almost certainly won't apply to others (whether that be for the same offence or a more severe one), and that's what is frustrating and leads to the two tier comments.

Definitely a case for looking at how sentences are constructed: perhaps the guys who cut down the tree would have been better punished by a short stretch inside, followed by a long stretch of publicly humiliating work, and/or something that substantially benefits the community.

Could make them serve their weekends planting trees in the hills, whilst wearing a pink high vis with "cunt in the community" on it!

 

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

I am worryingly in agreement with @royal white on this one. What they did was the act of a pair of obnoxious cunts, but I could list a number of other crimes committed by obnoxious cunts that attract lesser sentences.
A few weeks ago I was saying that Tice was a prick for suggesting that appealing sentences should be reviewed if enough people challenge it. But is cutting down a well known beautiful tree a more serious crime than cutting down a less well known tree ? 

 

I can't articulate it mate. I wish I could and I know what you're saying makes sense logically. It's very much just an emotive argument from me. And not because I was particularly fond of the tree either. 

It's wanting to wilfully destroy something, just because you know that other people find it something beautiful or makes them happy. It's kind of the most scumbagly thing I could probably think of (notwithstanding more serious or violent crimes of course). 

There's something about it that makes my skin crawl. 

2 hours ago, royal white said:

Are you just being deliberately thick tonight. (More than most other nights) 

Just asking a question mate. If you don’t want to answer it then don’t. Insults don’t do you any favours. There’s no proof that their approach to climate change is improving their ratings. Seems immigration is their biggest vote winner. 

Maybe you’re just a bit rattled after your meltdowns about the Union Jack dress & those tree vandals being sent down.

Must wear people doing who constantly fall for all this two tier nonsense. I’ll leave you to it 😊

10 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Fair enough. 

We all have our own idea about what punishments we'd meet out for various crimes, if we were in charge. 

There's just something about this one that touched a raw nerve with me. 

I was going to say bring back the birch. That would have a certain poetic justice about it.

I remember Smiffs explaining that he'd learned more about crime in his brief visit to Germany, than he would have done in a different setting.

It's clear that they were made an example of, and rightly so, but it is somewhat unimaginative.

The bad lads' army is shambolic and ineffective- get that sorted and it would be a start.

Sometimes tough, physical work, and discipline gives these low level crims a sense of pride and camaraderie that might otherwise be lacking. May help them turn themselves around.

Not sure that clink is absolutely necessary, even for such high profile events.

10 minutes ago, Ani said:

I am worryingly in agreement with @royal white on this one. What they did was the act of a pair of obnoxious cunts, but I could list a number of other crimes committed by obnoxious cunts that attract lesser sentences.
A few weeks ago I was saying that Tice was a prick for suggesting that appealing sentences should be reviewed if enough people challenge it. But is cutting down a well known beautiful tree a more serious crime than cutting down a less well known tree ? 

 

Agreed. It isn't and that's why problems occur.

Some cunt was recently employed by a pub chain to chop down a protected tree on a site down south. The chain claimed something along the lines of "they didn't know it was going to be felled, just pruned".

Like fuck, they knew full well what they were doing, and will happily pay the fine.

It is arguable that this is a more serious offence in that they knew it was protected, but did it anyway because it makes financial sense to do so.

They're the ones who want locking up!

1 minute ago, London Wanderer said:

Just asking a question mate. If you don’t want to answer it then don’t. Insults don’t do you any favours. There’s no proof that their approach to climate change is improving their ratings. Seems immigration is their biggest vote winner. 

Maybe you’re just a bit rattled after your meltdowns about the Union Jack dress & those tree vandals being sent down.

Must wear people doing who constantly fall for all this two tier nonsense. I’ll leave you to it 😊

 

Ive not said they’re gaining votes because of their stance. It was you who said they’re likely to lose support if they carry on with their climate denial and employing 18 year olds. What you’re basing that on is Anyone’s guess because they’re more popular now (with those 2 examples in place) then they have ever been. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8g6lj8343o.amp
 

Knew there had been a similar case, they seem to have better legal advice and a semblance of a defence. 

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Agreed. It isn't and that's why problems occur.

Some cunt was recently employed by a pub chain to chop down a protected tree on a site down south. The chain claimed something along the lines of "they didn't know it was going to be felled, just pruned".

Like fuck, they knew full well what they were doing, and will happily pay the fine.

It is arguable that this is a more serious offence in that they knew it was protected, but did it anyway because it makes financial sense to do so.

They're the ones who want locking up!

Lol just posted a link to this 

1 minute ago, Ani said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8g6lj8343o.amp
 

Knew there had been a similar case, they seem to have better legal advice and a semblance of a defence. 

There’s tress being felled illegally every week and there’s nothing but a slap on the wrist. The sycamore wasn’t protected with a TPO either. 

4 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I can't articulate it mate. I wish I could and I know what you're saying makes sense logically. It's very much just an emotive argument from me. And not because I was particularly fond of the tree either. 

It's wanting to wilfully destroy something, just because you know that other people find it something beautiful or makes them happy. It's kind of the most scumbagly thing I could probably think of (notwithstanding more serious or violent crimes of course). 

There's something about it that makes my skin crawl. 

If someone tore down a war memorial, or a statue of Churchill, they’d be happy with the same sentence. 
 

It’s selective outrage 

What we do need is heavier sentences for groomers & rapists 

1 minute ago, Ani said:

Lol just posted a link to this 

Haha.

It's not unique sadly.

Plenty of developers do it.

They stand to make more money from removing a tree and developing an area than the fine.

Surely, give them a stretch, or make the fine unlimited, with the judge having the discretion to mete out a fine commensurate with the financial gain.

2 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

There are hundreds of (insanely 🤷‍♂️) daft things approved by councils across the country on a weekly basis. Have you looked at the daft things this government tries to implement? I say try because Labour MP’s keep blocking them. Now the unions are trying to block them. 
Anyway, some 18 year old ……..

You’re really downplaying an 18 year old being put in charge of children & families services. Can you point to where Labour have done similar. Happy to be proven wrong here

15 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I can't articulate it mate. I wish I could and I know what you're saying makes sense logically. It's very much just an emotive argument from me. And not because I was particularly fond of the tree either. 

It's wanting to wilfully destroy something, just because you know that other people find it something beautiful or makes them happy. It's kind of the most scumbagly thing I could probably think of (notwithstanding more serious or violent crimes of course). 

There's something about it that makes my skin crawl. 

That's the Anderson effect! 🤣

10 minutes ago, royal white said:

 

Ive not said they’re gaining votes because of their stance. 

? 

4 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

? 

My bad on the wording on that (though it’s probably going to happen) what are you basing your assumption on that they will lose support because of their denial, because it’s certainly not happening to date.