La National Gallery ha speso solo £ 150 ritoccando la cornice van Gogh dopo aver appena fermato il “zuppa”
The National Gallery Spent Just £150 Retouching Van Gogh Frame After Just Stop Oil ‘Souping’
di HaveYuHeardAboutCunt
La National Gallery ha speso solo £ 150 ritoccando la cornice van Gogh dopo aver appena fermato il “zuppa”
The National Gallery Spent Just £150 Retouching Van Gogh Frame After Just Stop Oil ‘Souping’
di HaveYuHeardAboutCunt
9 commenti
Well that’s all fucking right then isn’t it. Because intent, risk, recklnessness don’t matter in law – only the outcome.
> When estimating the value of criminal damage, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice – the manual used by criminal lawyers – advises practitioners use “the probable market cost of repairs” (in this case, a full restoration) “or the probable market replacement cost, whichever is the less”. The law does not have to consider the actual amount paid to repair or retouch a damaged item.
Seems entirely fair. They knew what they were doing, and did it deliberately – to pretend there’s some injustice here is farcical.
If somebody smashed up my car, just because I decide to go the scrappy and replace the door from a donor instead of paying for an expensive body work job, I still expect it to be taken as if I’d spent the larger amount. The idea that victims get penalised for being able to repair something cheaply would be contrary to justice as I see it.
Well of course. JSO knew it wouldn’t hurt the picture. We all knew that. But a bunch of the usual idiots who refuse to understand how anything works and have probably never been to a gallery assumed they’d destroyed a priceless piece of art, and they were the loudest. As usual.
What I do not understand is why did these idiots think that splashing soup on an old painting was going to achieve anything other than annoy the hell out of people?
But Reddit assured me this would cost the taxpayer millions, and we needed to lock up these deviant terrorist scumbags for destroying a timeless work of art!
Swearing at a police officer costs nothing to repair, but will still get you a public order offence. People shouldn’t be damaging property regardless of the bill.
harms:
1. inconveniencing the three million annual visitors who now have to go through long queues and bag searches to enter the gallery, or are simply choose not to enter a lot
2. costs of paying staff to inspect bags
3. negative impact on the cause of climate change among the general public regarding them as idiots
benefits:
1. none whatsoever
also note that the point for their sentencing was that they were **reckless** as to causing serious harm. Recklessness is a key issue in criminal law. If you chuck a can of paint at a priceless painting you might hope it’s not permanently damaged, but you can’t be certain that the soup won’t seep in.
Also the judge correctly identified that:
> so far as Harm is concerned your offending is in Category 1, because of the substantial social impact involved. Any attack on priceless art which is on public display can have very harmful societal consequences. Stunts like yours lead to more onerous and intrusive security measures in art galleries and other locations where art and artefacts are on display. That may deter some people from visiting art galleries, museums and the like. There is even the risk that some treasures might have to be withdrawn from public view altogether.
There was never any suggestion that the ‘serious harm’ was the actual damage to the painting, this is just a strawman.
Interesting quirk of legislation re actual damage
vs probable damage.
I wonder to what extent the issue of value was pressed by JSO protesters to ensure they had their day in court before a jury, rather than a summary trial in the Magistrates’ court. Or was the prosecution gunning for the higher amount regardless.
£1.40 for a Warburtons Toastie to mop up the excess soup.
>Local man just gets black eye and bruising after “Assault”
>*Three and a half years in prison for that?*