• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Famous Sycamore Gap tree on Hadrian's Wall had been deliberately cut down

What a remarkably mindless and obscene act of gross vandalism in cutting down this beautiful tree. Having said that, might I be allowed a little chuckle at the two guys in the dock, Graham and Carruthers? They could almost be a very British version of Laurel and Hardy.

They have come out with some classic whoppers, thinking - erroneously - that it helps their case. Let's call them the Criminals Logical Fallacies. Or what about, 'The Tree Fellers' Fallacies', or even 'The Two Fellows Fallacies'?

Graham claims he has a whole fleet of vehicles including Range Rovers and stuff but that he never keeps a log of who uses them - 'Honest, Guv!' - so he has no idea why his Range Rover would have been identified by police forensic experts and the culprit vehicle could have been driven by anybody. 'Anybody who needs a vehicle can use it, I keep no record.'

Graham thinks this is the rebuttal of rebuttals and puts him in an innocent light.

In addition, he claims Carruthers was the tree felling expert. He himself has no idea how to fell a tree. Carruthers has all of the necessary equipment, plus - wait for it: - Carruthers once took a piece of string, wrapped it around the said Sycamore, and told him, Graham, exactly how wide it was, as, 'M'Lud, Carruthers was obsessed with that tree!'

Then we have his chum, Carruthers, who comes out with the hilarious classic: the alibi which is not an alibi, as it never happened. The alibi is this. Police wanted to know how come he was identified travelling to within the tree's location just the afternoon before, when strong winds were expected and even storms. His answer? Nothing to do with the freaking tree, mate, I was taking my wife and young baby out for a meal at the next town, Metro. [= the 'alibi']. But wait for it, he never actually arrived at the Metro, as the baby was sick, M'Lud, at that spot so we had to turn around and come back home. <phew> that establishes my whereabouts, he thinks, when it does quite the reverse and makes him look like an idiot! Even funnier still, when asked why he didn't dine in town much nearer to home, given the weather forecast, he came out with, ah, the class of restaurant around here is not quite up to that of the Metro! :wackylaugh:

Carruthers claims Graham rang him up to ask him to take the blame for the chopping of the tree, When asked why he excitedly spread social media stuff about the felling the next day, again we have the futile alibi that defeats itself. As far I was concerned, M'Lud, it was a non-story, the tree meant nuffink to me <fx whistles nonchalantly in the air> . I couldn't understand what the fuss was about as to me it was just a sundry tree. Never heard of it. I was obsessed with the news of the tree because I couldn't understand public interest in it. Phew, so that bloody well exonerates me!!!



:sdl:


It's Del Boy and Rodney: when art meets life. "Alright, Dave?"



.
 
Vixen said:
Graham claims he has a whole fleet of vehicles including Range Rovers and stuff but that he never keeps a log of who uses them - 'Honest, Guv!' - so he has no idea why his Range Rover would have been identified by police forensic experts and the culprit vehicle could have been driven by anybody. 'Anybody who needs a vehicle can use it, I keep no record.'

Graham thinks this is the rebuttal of rebuttals and puts him in an innocent light.
Click to expand...
It breaks the connection between him and the crime.

The UK shouldn't be in the business of convicting people just because one of their cars was found at the scene.

Too bad there's no video of Graham at the scene.
 
Richard Wright, KC for the prosecution is now doing the closing summing up. He tells the jury the pair are both denying it because they both lack courage to face public outrage.

Mr Wright reminded jurors that Carruthers had said during his evidence that it was 'just a tree' and the reaction to its felling was 'as if somebody had been murdered'.

'And perhaps that sentiment, that lack of appreciation, actually explains a great deal about these two defendants and about why... neither of them is willing to own up to what they have done,' Mr Wright said. However after it dawned on them that to 'own up' would make them both 'public enemy number one', neither of them now had the 'courage' to do that, he added.
Click to expand...

<snip>

Mr Wright told the court that a video said to be of the moment the tree was cut down, which was found on Graham's phone and had been sent to Carruthers, would have been 'gold dust' if it had been released.

He said: 'And there are only two people in the world who ever had that video on their telephones. Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers.'

Earlier, the judge, Mrs Justice Lambert, told jurors that both defendants deny they were involved.
Click to expand...

But I wonder if they are playing the game strategy of pointing the finger at each other, in the hope the jury are so confused as to which of them did it, they both get acquitted.

In his closing speech, Chris Knox, for Graham, said the defendants had fallen out 'spectacularly'.

He said Graham was accused of being 'stroppy' when answering the prosecution's questions.

'Does that make him the Sycamore Gap tree murderer?' Mr Knox asked the jury. DM
Click to expand...


Oh well, at least this pair has kept the court rocking with laughter at the crass stupidity of their responses in the witness box.

1746638564082.png

.
 
theprestige said:
It breaks the connection between him and the crime.

The UK shouldn't be in the business of convicting people just because one of their cars was found at the scene.

Too bad there's no video of Graham at the scene.
Click to expand...
His car wasn't found at the scene. And I would have to agree that someone's car being at the scene of a crime does not itself prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wonder how convictions were ever obtained before phone cameras.
 
theprestige said:
It breaks the connection between him and the crime.

The UK shouldn't be in the business of convicting people just because one of their cars was found at the scene.

Too bad there's no video of Graham at the scene.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that convictions should only be obtained if there's video evidence of the accused being at the scene? Cos that's going to lead to a lot of appeals, I think.
 
I see one of them has been in custody since December, supposedly for his own protection (from himself, might be the inference). The other was on bail.
 
www.bbc.co.uk

Two men guilty of felling world-famous Sycamore Gap tree

Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, both from Cumbria, are each convicted of two counts of criminal damage.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers will be sentenced on 15 July for two counts of criminal damage, but what kind of sentence should they expect?

Those found guilty of criminal damage with a value of more than £5,000 can face a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, according to the Sentencing Council, external, which promotes transparency and consistency in criminal sentencing.

However, longer prison terms are only considered when the guilty party is found to have a high level of culpability and their actions caused serious distress and harm.

Sentences for less serious cases can involve fines or community orders.

It will be the decision of the judge, Mrs Justice Lambert, to weigh up all the factors when she delivers her sentence in a couple of months.
Click to expand...
 
Do you think they actually go to prison? They do seem to be "highly culpable" and their actions did cause distress and harm. But I'm not sure it was "serious" distress and harm. It was rather unfortunate. A hefty fine and community order might suffice?
 
Puppycow said:
Do you think they actually go to prison? They do seem to be "highly culpable" and their actions did cause distress and harm. But I'm not sure it was "serious" distress and harm. It was rather unfortunate. A hefty fine and community order might suffice?
Click to expand...


IMV Graham will get the full ten years as he was the ringleader and acted out of malice over being told to quit his ground works land. One thing courts hate is vindictiveness. I think Carruthers although being the person who did the sawing, will get a lesser sentence because he is not very bright and easily led on. In other words, he was just plain daft and used by Graham. In addition, Graham grassed on him anonymously which is also aggravating IMV, as he was trying to place the blame wholly on a simple character when he was the one urging him on.


.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Do you think they actually go to prison? They do seem to be "highly culpable" and their actions did cause distress and harm. But I'm not sure it was "serious" distress and harm. It was rather unfortunate. A hefty fine and community order might suffice?
Click to expand...
According to the BBC, Mrs Justice Lambert said they should be prepared for "lengthy" custodial sentences.

I've no idea what lengthy means in this context.
 
Darat said:
That seems disproportionate to what they did.
Click to expand...

Meh, like ohms said, it depends on what the definition of "lengthy" turns out to be. There will be money lost as it was a tourist attraction, and there have been a handful of films that use the area, which brings in more money. People obviously loved the tree and were impacted by it being cut down for no reason.

I definitely don't think anyone will be getting 10 years, but I could see both of them getting at least a year, maybe two and the ringleader getting the higher of the two. It was deliberate, planned out, and malicious. I'd have more sympathy if it were a heat of the moment thing.
 
Vixen said:
IMV Graham will get the full ten years as he was the ringleader and acted out of malice over being told to quit his ground works land. One thing courts hate is vindictiveness. I think Carruthers although being the person who did the sawing, will get a lesser sentence because he is not very bright and easily led on. In other words, he was just plain daft and used by Graham. In addition, Graham grassed on him anonymously which is also aggravating IMV, as he was trying to place the blame wholly on a simple character when he was the one urging him on.


.
Click to expand...
I thought Graham was the one with a mental disability and Carruthers had wanted him to to take the blame because he would get a lesser sentence.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I thought Graham was the one with a mental disability and Carruthers had wanted him to to take the blame because he would get a lesser sentence.
Click to expand...
Only if you take him at his word. In reality, he seems to be the more devious one.

I found this article with more background on him:

www.mirror.co.uk

Tangled love life of Sycamore Gap vandal with 'no mates' led to his capture

Daniel Graham, one of two men standing trial in Newcastle for felling the Sycamore Gap tree, has been described as a social outcast who had been disowned by his family
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
 
It's one tree, and part of ancient monument.

I don't see imprisonment as necessary except in the case of those who pose an extreme danger to others. Ironically, gaol might be the safest place for those two if reports of threats are accurate.

What ought to be the consequence for damaging/destroying something of historical importance?
 
commandlinegamer said:
It's one tree, and part of ancient monument.

I don't see imprisonment as necessary except in the case of those who pose an extreme danger to others. Ironically, gaol might be the safest place for those two if reports of threats are accurate.

What ought to be the consequence for damaging/destroying something of historical importance?
Click to expand...

Not really accurate though. The tree itself was only planted some time between 1860 and 1890 - and one could in fact make a plausible argument that the planting of this tree at this time was actually potentially damaging/destroying the Wall (the tree was deliberately planted only a few feet from the Roman Wall.
 
LondonJohn said:
Not really accurate though. The tree itself was only planted some time between 1860 and 1890 - and one could in fact make a plausible argument that the planting of this tree at this time was actually potentially damaging/destroying the Wall (the tree was deliberately planted only a few feet from the Roman Wall.
Click to expand...
Well, by the time the tree was planted that 'wall' had been stripped down to a shadow of its original self, and the stone carted away for useul projects. The tree didn't 'damage' it.
 
I think a token custodial sentence (months rather than years) is most likely, though community service would also be appropriate. Plus a hefty fine.
 
Pixel42 said:
I think a token custodial sentence (months rather than years) is most likely, though community service would also be appropriate. Plus a hefty fine.
Click to expand...
I thought along similar lines, time served for the one on remand and 5-6 months for the other. £1k fine and a period of community work.
 
LondonJohn said:
Not really accurate though. The tree itself was only planted some time between 1860 and 1890 - and one could in fact make a plausible argument that the planting of this tree at this time was actually potentially damaging/destroying the Wall (the tree was deliberately planted only a few feet from the Roman Wall.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was trying to make the point that they were two distinct items. The comma should have gone after "and". I blame the English language.

In terms of quantifying value, it's relatively easy for the wall as you can calculate the cost of the repairs required.
 
commandlinegamer said:
Sorry, I was trying to make the point that they were two distinct items. The comma should have gone after "and". I blame the English language.

In terms of quantifying value, it's relatively easy for the wall as you can calculate the cost of the repairs required.
Click to expand...
Can they figure out how much it would cost to plant another 150-year old sycamore there?
 
Mojo said:
Can they figure out how much it would cost to plant another 150-year old sycamore there?
Click to expand...
Good luck finding a crane (hirer) in the UK that would risk lifting it. Golden rule in the crane world, you don't lift mature trees.
I had many cranes on hire to the Celtic Manor for the redevelopment (mid 90's), the groundsman asked for a relatively small tree, 25-30 footer to be moved, for an off-the-books fee. Our 18 wheeler (160te) driver took the money and bent the boom. He lost his £65k job for 200 quid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom