Council tree felling...

So you think all inner city and roadside trees should be cut down? Sad..and a little bit pathetic.

Throughout the city "street trees" are outnumbered by thousands more trees within a few yards of roads that aren't planted in footpaths or roadside verges.

HECK!

 

It's not like the trees matter They probably shouldn't have been planted by the roadsides anyway! but in hindsight now they are damaging things.

 

So simply chop them all down, plant some new ones in their place.... then have the same time/energy/resource wasting FIASCO in 30 years time eh?

 

Or maybe...

 

Chop them down and then re-plant trees in areas where trees will be left alone, forests, woods, cops's or even tracts of waste land where they won't attack the infrastructure.

 

To be fair, at the time the trees were planted with the best of intentions, however now they are a menace in more ways than one.

 

Things change... get used to it!

Fortunately mainly people recognise that living in an environment surrounded by tarmac and concrete is pretty awful, for both the ebvirontment, and mental health. Not to mention sterile, and bleak.

Rather sad that you seem to view things in such a dull manner. I imagine replacing any grass in your garden with fake grass or concrete is also a priority. 'easier to manage'. Depressing.

Fortunately mainly people recognise that living in an environment surrounded by tarmac and concrete is pretty awful, for both the ebvirontment, and mental health. Not to mention sterile, and bleak.

 

Rather sad that you seem to view things in such a dull manner. I imagine replacing any grass in your garden with fake grass or concrete is also a priority. 'easier to manage'. Depressing.

Who says cutting down a few thousand trees growing in footpaths and roadside verges will leave an environment surrounded by tarmac and concrete - this seems to be one of the big myths spread by STAG and the like - they seem to ignore the many thousand more trees close to roads planted in other locations.

I walk to work in town every day along main roads and pass a good hundred trees by a few feet - only half a dozen are planted in the footpath or roadside verges.

Who says cutting down a few thousand trees growing in footpaths and roadside verges will leave an environment surrounded by tarmac and concrete - this seems to be one of the big myths spread by STAG and the like - they seem to ignore the many thousand more trees close to roads planted in other locations.

 

I walk to work in town every day along main roads and pass a good hundred trees by a few feet - only half a dozen are planted in the footpath or roadside verges.

Well pretty soon you'll be walkimg past a lot less. 17,500 trees- half of those in the city may well leave you looking at a heck of a lot more concrete and tarmac. Removed for no other reason than the profit of a multinational company. If that's something you're happy with, I feel sorry for you.

It really beats me why anyone would think a group of people standing up to a multinational company, regarded across the world and well documentated as being shady, facing arrest and fines, for no personal gain, are interested in creating 'big myths'. I sort of despair that society would ever favour such a company as amey over those trying, against all odds, to stop their practices. It seems sp sad. The little men and women really aren't the enemy- and it's shameful that amey have created enough crap that some people think they are.

I suppose it's similar to the way those on the dole, immigrants and such like are portrayed as the 'problem'. We're well conditioned to hate the little men and women rather than thoae that deserve our hate- the companies like amey, vodafone, banks etc that make life worse for everyone at our expense and their gain.

Well pretty soon you'll be walkimg past a lot less. 17,500 trees- half of those in the city may well leave you looking at a heck of a lot more concrete and tarmac.

No - 17,500 trees is half those planted in pavements and roadside verges - not half the trees in the city.

No - 17,500 trees is half those planted in pavements and roadside verges - not half the trees in the city.

Fair point- but still no reason fpr them to be removed for amey's profit. Fortunately they can't get their hands on parkland....

We keep hearing about these 17,500 trees being cut down but very little about how many are to be planted/replanted in their place ... or will the amount of money having to be spent policing the protests result in less available to finance replacements

Well pretty soon you'll be walkimg past a lot less. 17,500 trees- half of those in the city may well leave you looking at a heck of a lot more concrete and tarmac. Removed for no other reason than the profit of a multinational company. If that's something you're happy with, I feel sorry for you.

 

It really beats me why anyone would think a group of people standing up to a multinational company, regarded across the world and well documentated as being shady, facing arrest and fines, for no personal gain, are interested in creating 'big myths'. I sort of despair that society would ever favour such a company as amey over those trying, against all odds, to stop their practices. It seems sp sad. The little men and women really aren't the enemy- and it's shameful that amey have created enough crap that some people think they are.

 

I suppose it's similar to the way those on the dole, immigrants and such like are portrayed as the 'problem'. We're well conditioned to hate the little men and women rather than thoae that deserve our hate- the companies like amey, vodafone, banks etc that make life worse for everyone at our expense and their gain.

The issue is that the protesters are drawing out the inevitable and at the same time costing the taxpayer an absolute fortune.

The protest was initially about the trees but now it appears to be shady dealing by Amey/council.

Which is it?

What is the reason for protecting the trees? Is it aesthetic or is it to save the environment? Or is it because you believe the trees have feelings?

There are many problems going on in the world and a few trees are at the very bottom of the pile.

The issue is that the protesters are drawing out the inevitable and at the same time costing the taxpayer an absolute fortune.

The protest was initially about the trees but now it appears to be shady dealing by Amey/council.

Which is it?

What is the reason for protecting the trees? Is it aesthetic or is it to save the environment? Or is it because you believe the trees have feelings?

There are many problems going on in the world and a few trees are at the very bottom of the pile.

See this...A well put argument...Bravo fella...My sentiments exactly. Too many folks with nothing better to do than go out side and complain about something...Typical (old) Sheffielders.

Why would they. They used reasonable force, that of laying hands on to remove the protesters from the excluded area.

You know, like a doorman can remove you from a pub...

A pub is private property. These are the public streets of Sheffield.

The police are being used as private security, that's public money spent protecting a tax abusing multinational.

A pub is private property. These are the public streets of Sheffield.

 

The police are being used as private security, that's public money spent protecting a tax abusing multinational.

But the area had been legally turned in to an excluded area allowing removal by force if necessary.

So what the hell are you doing? Protecting trees or protesting against a multinational?

Now stop wasting my tax money and let them get on with it.

A pub is private property. These are the public streets of Sheffield.

 

The police are being used as private security, that's public money spent protecting a tax abusing multinational.

In what way is Amey a tax abusing multinational?