A man has just been prosecuted for scaling a 19th Century Whitehall statue of a Grade II listed statue of Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (pictures of him doing it here), causing £5,000 worth of damage by breaking off its sword.
According to Wikipedia, the Duke (who some might think was a bit of an embarrassment to the modern Duke of Cambridge, Prince William, who is both a modern man and an army officer ) “earned a reputation for being resistant to doctrinal change and for making promotions based upon an officer’s social standing, rather than his merit. Under his command, the British Army became a moribund and stagnant institution, lagging far behind its continental counterparts” and the statue is “ somewhat ironically, positioned outside the front door of the War Office that he so strongly resisted”. So not London’s best loved statue then!
The suggestion that the man, who has a degree in tourism, had mental problems was rejected even though, despite the cold weather, he stayed up there completely naked for 3 hours and he broke his own teeth biting the statue. Next month, no doubt, the sword will be mended and the statue will be made as good as new but the man has been jailed for 12 weeks.
No point in labouring the issue but it is surely worth asking how does that all fit in with Priddy where rather more than a sword was broken, there is zero prospect of any repair and the monument was vastly more significant and well-regarded and four thousand years older?
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
12/12/2012 at 13:23
James
There is no comparison between the two. With regards to this naked chap, he was drunk, tested positive for class A drugs when arrested, used abusive and threatening language to Police, was carrying a screwdriver that he threw down to the ground, caused a major road within the capital to be closed for 3+ hours and generally acted riotously in the capital of this country with scant disregard for any laws, decency or respect of property.
The damage to the statue is only a small part of the bigger picture so to compare this foolish act to the damage at Priddy is plainly ludicrous.
12/12/2012 at 13:34
heritageaction
The comparison we were seeking to make was between “heritage crimes” – one in London which caused minimal heritage damage and one at Priddy that caused immeasurable heritage damage. Nothing “ludicrous” about pointing out the contrast.
12/12/2012 at 14:01
James
One was purely heritage crime, the other, was public disorder in the capital of which heritage crime was a part yet you seem to draw a attention to the disparity between the punishments imposed which seeing that it is not a ‘like for like’ offense, is ludicrous.
12/12/2012 at 14:32
heritageaction
“Ludicrous” again, eh? That’ll teach us to criticise how most metal detectorists behave, eh James?
Let us put it simply: what happened in London will be out of sight and out of mind in weeks. What happened at Priddy will be regretted for many centuries. Making that point is not ludicrous, as many people understand.
12/12/2012 at 18:02
James
And just where does metal detecting come into this?
Regardless,the punishment of crime is not necessarily based on the impact of WHAT happened but also takes into account what COULD have happened and in the case of the naked man, what COULD have happened could have been far worse than a broken sword. It was the start of civil disobedience that luckily was nipped in the bud and a broken sword was the legacy of the mans actions.
The bulldozing and wanton destruction at Priddy was abhorrent but to compare the two events is (let me use another word this time) simply absurd.
13/12/2012 at 06:49
heritageaction
“what COULD have happened could have been far worse than a broken sword. It was the start of civil disobedience that luckily was nipped in the bud”
!!!
Really? So the judge had in mind he might have caused hundreds of people to get naked and climb statues all over London? We’ll have to disagree. The incident was miniscule compared to Priddy.
13/12/2012 at 09:20
James
If looked at purely on the basis of damage to Heritage then yes, Priddy was far more serious an incident, however, they are incidents with 2 totally differing contexts and ACTUAL crimes, hence the difference in sentencing.
#So the judge had in mind he might have caused hundreds of people to get naked and climb statues all over London? #
Large scale civil disobedience can start with one act by one individual and escalate from there on and whilst it is churlish to assume that people would also want to strip naked, it is not beyond doubt that others, seeing such an outrageous act, could or would want to further exacerbate the situation.
And, for clarity and avoidance of doubt, the 12 week sentence was for possession of an offensive weapon.
13/12/2012 at 10:10
heritageaction
“And, for clarity and avoidance of doubt, the 12 week sentence was for possession of an offensive weapon.”
Actually, the “weapon” was a sharpened screwdiver which he was said to have thrown onto the roof of a bus shelter – sounds a bit like the evidence against him was being stretched.