Jump to content

Litotes

Members
  • Content Count

    3,191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Neutral

About Litotes

  • Rank
    Registered User

Personal Information

  • Location
    Hunters Bar
  • Interests
    lots
  • Occupation
    engineer thingy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Do you mean you need to prove where the funds you are buying the new house with came from? Bank account records should be sufficient.
  2. Never understood that argument - they could park down any sidestreet on a double yellow (because they can) and chase off the miscreant at which point the bus lane would be empty - instead they often park in illegal (to the rest of the populous) or dangerous positions (like in that video) or end up causing as much of an obstruction as those they have ticketed. And actually all we would need are cameras not extra cars on the roads.
  3. Plenty of space on Norfolk Street where they won't be causing an obstruction or a hazard to cyclists - but no, they need to create that hazard and park on the pavement. Silly silly warden!
  4. But there was plenty of space to park which wasn't blocking a designated cycle lane.
  5. He is a lying cheating racist sexist bully who has got his comeuppance. May he be destined to the history books as a failure - because he was.
  6. Because that is their nature... need I say "tree felling"?
  7. If you report the potholes and the council does nothing (as it often does) then you can claim if your car is damaged in them.
  8. Surely that was Brexit?
  9. What? You can change the result... wow!! <grin>
  10. Hmmm... wrong - e.g. Ecclesall was a Lib Dem win according to the link Anyone calculated the turn out?
  11. Just saying a leopard doesn't change its spots... the historical evidence is that SCC pays no attention to the wished of the electorate.
  12. At last the government are prioritising lives over money https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65288852
  13. So, they consulted in 2019, 2021 and then changed their proposal... and made recommendations for implementations without further consultation... it seem we are agreed on that... The telephone line was only promoted through the website. There was no discussion about what was in scope and out of scope - anyone with any sense would not have made the ring road in the boundary, they would have said the ring road was the boundary... but no - money rules... this was all about the SCC raking in more money through fallacious decisions based on almost fraudulent consultations - similar to consulting across student areas out of term time. They are a bunch of charlatans, and they know it - Kate Joseph appears to lead by example! Perhaps just based on historical knowledge - as you know, Planner1, I went to a public consultation session. I stood up and asked that my comment be minuted and actioned. No minutes of the meeting were ever produced or published, and hence no actions were ever taken or rejected... thus proving the sham nature of the SCC public consultation process. If you are going to stand up for process, then make sure the process actually exists rather than just being a mockery of the electorate.
  14. This really supports the opinion that consultations are purely lip service. In fact the link you provide show that they consulted, and after consultation changed their proposals, but didn't go back out to consultation - in itself, this is in breach of guidelines Furthermore a consultation on a proposal that will have such a long term impact should have been done for more 4 weeks, especially over the Christmas period - the local government guidelines back this up. Also, there is no indication that no route to respond, other than through the internet, was provided - again, against local government recommendations. In these reports it identifies that there were 25 oppositions to the CAZ and 9 supporters. Nearly 75% said it would have a negative impact on their businesses and less than half said it would be positive for Sheffield. "Respondents to the consultation overall viewed the CAZ as having an overall negative impact on businesses and Sheffield as a city, and there is a lot of concern about these impacts. Many suggestions were made about how these impacts can be mitigated, and alternative suggestions on CAZ delivery put forward." And yet, we have been landed with a CAZ that very few in the city wanted, a CAZ that was delivered was not one we were consulted on, and a CAZ that is imbecilic in its implementation... Nothing new there for the SCC!
  15. Did anyone see any announcements about the CAZ or was it another stitch up from the SCC?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.