Jump to content


Council tree felling...

Recommended Posts

I got all the information from the link posted by c00kie further up the thread so the tinfoil hat can go back in the cupboard.

 

I don’t know how many properties are on short term lease either - but that would only reinforce the apathy argument rather than contest it anyway.

Hmmm... :huh:

 

... well not really.

 

I'd like to know what the for/against percentage breakdown was of the properties with long-term occupants.

 

For example, if there are only 23 properties that are long-term occupants, and 23 replied and objected, then obviously 100% of all those who have an interest in the area were against.

 

That would mean that 100% of those people who were living there long-term were certainly not apathetic.

 

Which again raises the point - why would anyone who is only living there for a few months care one way or the other? But just by their numbers it could be skewing the results and giving the impression that very few care. Maybe this should have been taken into account?

 

Failing that, you should really be saying that out of the 19% who replied, 5 times as many objected (16%) to those who didn't (3%). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And presumably the council had to use "The Occupier" due to the constraints of the Data Protection Act.

 

If a brown envelope marked "the Occupier" came to my address it would go straight in the bin . Had them before , I cant remember what for but it was just bumf . I think the point that Cyclone was making was that these Brown envelopes were delivered by council employees not the post office and with no address on them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note also that the "survey" was incredibly biased. It actually stated in the letter that SCC only cut trees down as a last resort, and that the tree programme was necessary to prevent "a catastrophic decline in tree numbers".

 

Just imagine if the Brexit referendum ballot paper had stated that leaving the EU would result in a catastrophic decline in the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the point that Cyclone was making was that these Brown envelopes were delivered by council employees not the post office and with no address on them

 

A point he failed to make despite a number of posts on the subject.

 

First time I've heard that there was no address - a number of posts on the STAG website stated they were addressed to "The Occupier".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A point he failed to make despite a number of posts on the subject.

 

First time I've heard that there was no address - a number of posts on the STAG website stated they were addressed to "The Occupier".

 

Yes "the Occupier" but no house address on them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
Note also that the "survey" was incredibly biased. It actually stated in the letter that SCC only cut trees down as a last resort, and that the tree programme was necessary to prevent "a catastrophic decline in tree numbers".

 

Just imagine if the Brexit referendum ballot paper had stated that leaving the EU would result in a catastrophic decline in the economy.

 

So how come so few didn’t vote in favour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't remember the last time I had junk mail in a plain brown envelope - junk mail envelopes are always covered in ads, logos etc

 

Get real, you know as well as I do that "consultation exercises" are, and have always been, a sham.

 

“But the plans were on display…”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how come so few didn’t vote in favour?

 

Well technically speaking you'd have to ask them. However, when presented with a survey which seemed a fait accompli, I would guess that most people didn't see the point in voting, in a similar way that most people don't vote in local elections because they think the incumbents will get in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
Well technically speaking you'd have to ask them. However, when presented with a survey which seemed a fait accompli, I would guess that most people didn't see the point in voting, in a similar way that most people don't vote in local elections because they think the incumbents will get in anyway.

 

So based on yours and cyclones posts - on sheldon road - 83% of the households either didn’t read the letter - or read it and decided not to bother doing anything about it.

 

And that reinforces the fact that a silent majority was against the felling?

 

---------- Post added 17-09-2018 at 23:45 ----------

 

Here’s another example

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam/sheffield/docs/roads-and-pavements/managingtrees/Managing%20Trees%20Doc5%20Phase%203%20Streets%20Tree%20Survey%20Results.pdf

 

 

986 households

57 approve

27 disapprove

902 didn’t respond

 

Approval?

Disapproval?

Or apathy?

Edited by makapaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So based on yours and cyclones posts - on sheldon road - 83% of the households either didn’t read the letter - or read it and decided not to bother doing anything about it.

 

And that reinforces the fact that a silent majority was against the felling?

 

Using facts that You posted , more people were against the tree felling , than for it . What else do you need to know ? Stop trying to twist facts

 

---------- Post added 17-09-2018 at 23:50 ----------

 

So based on yours and cyclones posts - on sheldon road - 83% of the households either didn’t read the letter - or read it and decided not to bother doing anything about it.

 

And that reinforces the fact that a silent majority was against the felling?

 

---------- Post added 17-09-2018 at 23:45 ----------

 

Here’s another example

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam/sheffield/docs/roads-and-pavements/managingtrees/Managing%20Trees%20Doc5%20Phase%203%20Streets%20Tree%20Survey%20Results.pdf

 

 

986 households

57 approve

27 disapprove

902 didn’t respond

 

Approval?

Disapproval?

Or apathy?

 

Approve , obviously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
Using facts that You posted , more people were against the tree felling , than for it . What else do you need to know ? Stop trying to twist facts

 

Ok well what about the post above - more were for felling than against.

 

But the massive majority didn’t bother to respond.

 

I’ve never argued more are for - ive only argues the majority weren’t really bothered - so it is probably wrong to say that the “silent majority” is against tree felling.

 

I’m not twisting anything - im not “for” felling myself. I’m posting statistics and you can form your own view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.