Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

You agree householders were contacted but did not read the correspondence or did not reply.

Yes. As happens in all correspondence which is why, in my job, I have to monitor email open rates and identify if a message is not getting through

For instance, if I were to send a question to a mailing list of 150'000 people, and of that, only 4000 people replied "YES!", that does NOT mean that an overwhelming majority of 63% thought "NO!" if the open rate was 10% and the response rate was 3.2%

It would be possible for me, using email and a poor message title and from address to engineer a lower open rate to ensure less responses if we were to count the % of people that the message was sent to, who did not respond "NO".

I'm not suggesting that the junk-looking mail was a deliberate act - though it would certainly be possible to use that if you did want to ensure a low response - I'm suggesting that the survey method was inherently flawed and does not give an accurate representation. Whilst there certainly are people in favour of the tree felling, there may be more in favour if the survey was carried out in a better manner in which case there would be no argument. Or there may be many more opposed to the felling.

The point is that WE DON'T KNOW, which means the survey was nigh on useless as it has clearly failed to establish the feelings of the majority, relying on a simple count of responses against.

Our street was surveyed and there weren't many responses. I thought it would be a lot higher after all the furore on Facebook, but in the end of those who did respond, the majority were in favour of the trees being replaced.

I've got to say, the letter notifying us of the survey was pretty official looking. I wouldn't have said it looked like junk mail.

 

I've got to say, the letter notifying us of the survey was pretty official looking. I wouldn't have said it looked like junk mail.

Really? The ones I've seen are in plain brown envelopes and are addressed to the 'householder' or something equally general. Not the sort of thing I imagine many people taking note of, especially students, who don't tend to open anything unless it is addressed directly to them.

Only a minority voted to leave the EU. Should we ignore that vote?

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2017 at 16:30 ----------

 

 

Which doesn't mean that they a) knew about the survey, b) agreed with the action, or c) that a specific street with a low response rate wasn't the one deliberately mentioned by the official.

Grasping at straws aren't you.

---------- Post added 14-02-2017 at 20:37 ----------

Yes. As happens in all correspondence which is why, in my job, I have to monitor email open rates and identify if a message is not getting through

 

For instance, if I were to send a question to a mailing list of 150'000 people, and of that, only 4000 people replied "YES!", that does NOT mean that an overwhelming majority of 63% thought "NO!" if the open rate was 10% and the response rate was 3.2%

 

It would be possible for me, using email and a poor message title and from address to engineer a lower open rate to ensure less responses if we were to count the % of people that the message was sent to, who did not respond "NO".

 

I'm not suggesting that the junk-looking mail was a deliberate act - though it would certainly be possible to use that if you did want to ensure a low response - I'm suggesting that the survey method was inherently flawed and does not give an accurate representation. Whilst there certainly are people in favour of the tree felling, there may be more in favour if the survey was carried out in a better manner in which case there would be no argument. Or there may be many more opposed to the felling.

 

The point is that WE DON'T KNOW, which means the survey was nigh on useless as it has clearly failed to establish the feelings of the majority, relying on a simple count of responses against.

The fact is that households were informed and given a chance to air their views.

If people neglected to read their mail or decided not to respond that is their decision.

Grasping at straws aren't you.

It's your argument, so why's it me that's grasping at straws?

---------- Post added 14-02-2017 at 21:34 ----------

 

The fact is that households were informed and given a chance to air their views.

If people neglected to read their mail or decided not to respond that is their decision.

Not responding doesn't make you in favour of something, clearly.

Really? The ones I've seen are in plain brown envelopes and are addressed to the 'householder' or something equally general. Not the sort of thing I imagine many people taking note of, especially students, who don't tend to open anything unless it is addressed directly to them.

The letter stood out well enough in my opinion, possibly could get overlooked in an HMO, I grant you. I don't think there are any student houses or HMOs on our street though. Seems people here just aren't that interested.

It's your argument, so why's it me that's grasping at straws?

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2017 at 21:34 ----------

 

 

Not responding doesn't make you in favour of something, clearly.

Now you are really grasping at straws and I consider you are just arguing for the sake of it.

I think Jeffrey's point - and the council's - is that having a mix of both young and old trees means the streetscene in a few decades time will be better than it would have been.

Yes. Old trees die- like every living thing does- and young trees' lifespans will (counting from now) be longer.

Yes. Old trees die- like every living thing does- and young trees' lifespans will (counting from now) be longer.

The trees being felled aren't 'old' trees by any sensible definition. They are trees that could easily have 100-150+ of healthy and safe life ahead of them.

Are you seriously suggesting that it makes sense to fell these trees now because a young tree would live longer (counting from now)? For a start, the failure rate of saplings (or standards) is high - both standards near be have been snapped and needed to be replaced within the last year (one of which hasn't been).

Although by your logic that is a good thing no? A tree planted this year will have a longer life (counting from now) than one planted last year.

Heads should really roll after the Rustlings Road fiasco. Local tax and rate payers should never be treated like that in any civilised society.

Nick Clegg was quick to comment after it happened but has been annoyingly quiet since.

Local tax and rate payers should never be treated like that in any civilised society.

Alternative reading:

Local tax and rate payers should never behave like that in any civilised society

Alternative reading:

Local tax and rate payers should never behave like that in any civilised society

You don't think it is ever right to protest?