Ok that Helo guy had a screw loose, but to form a harsher judgement because of 9/11 is...is...I'm speechless! If the Judge said "You damaged property...take him down!" I could understand it. But to say that it was an act of terrorism because 9/11 occured a year and a day earlier is, frankly, rediculous.
What happened to judging cases on their merits? Surely a corner stone of Eglish justice, etc, etc.
Can anybody else see the logic in that Judge's reasoning for having to give such a custodial sentance?