The judge’s statement is so disingenuous, designed to deceive rather than to promote a realistic view of actions and consequences. They didn’t throw a can at the painting and luckily the glass held, they splashed some soup, with no chance of piercing the glass and doing no damage to it, and if the pane of glass wasn’t there they wouldn’t have done it.
Damaging the frame is something he can complain about, but the painting was never in danger. There’s definitely some political thrust to these overwrought and deceptive sentences the UK is giving to climate activists.
The judge’s statement is so disingenuous, designed to deceive rather than to promote a realistic view of actions and consequences. They didn’t throw a can at the painting and luckily the glass held, they splashed some soup, with no chance of piercing the glass and doing no damage to it, and if the pane of glass wasn’t there they wouldn’t have done it.
Damaging the frame is something he can complain about, but the painting was never in danger. There’s definitely some political thrust to these overwrought and deceptive sentences the UK is giving to climate activists.