RIP - Hadrian’s wall tree

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Badger_Boom

Veteran
Location
York
No but I bet that would be treated as a civil matter and wouldn't get much public money to chase after you to punish you.. That's the point really, it should have been handled with the true damage caused not the offence and daily fail outrage like it has now. This is not a special tree.
It did however affect a Scheduled Monument which is a criminal offence covered by Section 28 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
 

AndyRM

XOXO
Location
North Shields
 

AndyRM

XOXO
Location
North Shields
The phone evidence does seem fairly conclusive.
But there is still absolutely no suggestion of a credible motive for cutting it down.
It just seems to have been a laugh?

That makes it somehow worse.

So, what, they got wrecked one night and thought "Aye, this'll be good craic!" I don't buy that, but they've talked such utter b*llocks so far who knows what will come out in the end.

If it was for a laugh it reminds me of a few years when ago some idiots knackered the Metro for a good half a day by writing "Hang all peodos" and walking down Byker Bridge with it:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/all...-for-toplessly-protesting-nonces-on-a-bridge/

Which other than making people late was actually pretty funny, and I say that as someone who was stuck on a train that got held up by them.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
I love court sketches
1746631636000.jpeg
 

markemark

Veteran
Am I missing something or is there no actual credible defence they’re putting up? Are they denying they did it? It was an accident? Or are they planning on blaming each other? What am I missing here?
 

T4tomo

Legendary Member
Am I missing something or is there no actual credible defence they’re putting up? Are they denying they did it? Or are they planning on blaming each other? What am I missing here?

read the articles..... yes they are both saying I didn't do it it was him. And each defence lawyer will say if to the jury "if you arent sure it was him the you can't find him guilty" its the trying to create to reasonable doubt defence. If they don;t blame each other then they are both likely to get convicted as acting in collusion, which is the argument of the prosecution barrister - "you planned and did it together, one of you sawed it down whilst the other filmed it."

Its hard to see them being found not guilty tbh.
 

T4tomo

Legendary Member
Especially as we know two people did it.
One was filming whilst the other cut it down.

and said film was shared from one of them's phone to the other's!

when it first happened I thought it may have been someone with some simmering feud with the National trust or pissed off with people parking to visits the tree etc. as said, its appears it just a couple of halfwits who did it because they could.
 
Top Bottom