Such is the title of this article in The Times.
After reading that, I felt as though something was wrong, so I’m posting here just to see if i’m just misunderstanding something or if someone agrees. Here’s what I think:
- The title is deceiving, the man was never near the queen with an axe. The queen only appeared long after he was arrested.
- They have no proof of motive, and his story, although unlikely, is nonetheless completely plausible.
- From what I see, he got a few years for possession of various blades (a felling axe is illegal since when?), and another 18 months for “breaching an anti-social behaviour order”. How can you imprison someone for 6 years for carrying an axe in public without any proof as to why he was there or what he was going to do with it. Isn’t that a bit absurd, or is this standard practice?
- The article seems to stress that having a “deep, idiosyncratic hatred of authority” is somehow a bad thing. It’s almost as if this particular idiosyncrasy put him into jail.
Am I missing something or is jailing a man for 6 years who has three kids for “possibly endangering children” in a crowd (since they say there was no real risk to the queen), and carrying a felling axe a little over the top?