Council tree felling...

No - just highlighting that’s its odd that all of the crimes you have listed have been ignored.

There not all criminal offences Maka - didn't you know that?

Yet again (tiresome doesn't do your blind loyalty justice) you are defending SCC to the hilt -

Can you perhaps try and deal with any of the issues Dave has raised - Or do you really think it is acceptable for SCC to have sought to imprison an elected opposition official and someone who read a poem?

Do I not have a right to see the terms of a contract or the full terms of an injunction - if not why ?

Its not quite 12 yet so the legal boys will still be available to take your call.

Youve already been warned more than once on this thread to stop the personal comments and bickering.

If you cant discuss the topic without resorting to this then please dont post.

The whole situation is a disgrace. The only way to defend the council's behaviour, when given all the evidence, is to be willfully blind to things.

The only people seemingly left defending the council are those in it's employ, internet trolls, or people who haven't bothered to read anything about the situation other than nonsense such as 'poison tea'.

Given the lows the council have stooped to, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if they're asking employees to go to places like this to defend them. Some people bought the idea of someone 'poisoning' tea with laxatives 6 months ago, after all.

There's not many people left defending them anymore now. The ones that are are increasingly desperate in their arguments, having been rumbled again and again.

No - just highlighting that’s its odd that all of the crimes you have listed have been ignored.

Regardless of whether there have been prosecutions of not, do you personally feel that any of the events I listed has actually happened? If so, roughly how many? And if not, what sort evidence might persuade you otherwise?

Regardless of whether there have been prosecutions of not, do you personally feel that any of the events I listed has actually happened? If so, roughly how many? And if not, what sort evidence might persuade you otherwise?

Why am I being asked to evidence your claims? I just said its unusual that all of these offences haven't led to any prosecutions (or charges).

The only question I asked was why STAG feel the world is against them? It was about the statement that even though there was now a Tree Champion they still felt it wouldn't make any difference.

You then went on to list a load of crimes you say have taken place which no one has been charged or prosecuted for and I said that was unusual. Which it is.

For example you would expect charges to be brought for the offences you listed for, amongst other things;

Illegally withholding information.

Providing false information to the police.

Falsifying public documents.

Perjury

Hospitalising members of the public

Intentional wrongful arrest.

My only point being that criminality on this scale would usually lead to charges if there was evidence of it wouldn't it?

Why am I being asked to evidence your claims? I just said its unusual that all of these offences haven't led to any prosecutions (or charges).

 

The only question I asked was why STAG feel the world is against them? It was about the statement that even though there was now a Tree Champion they still felt it wouldn't make any difference.

 

You then went on to list a load of crimes you say have taken place which no one has been charged or prosecuted for and I said that was unusual. Which it is.

For example you would expect charges to be brought for the offences you listed for, amongst other things;

 

Illegally withholding information.

Providing false information to the police.

Falsifying public documents.

Perjury

Hospitalising members of the public

Intentional wrongful arrest.

 

My only point being that criminality on this scale would usually lead to charges if there was evidence of it wouldn't it?

I am sure we will appreciate that your greater knowledge of the criminal justice system means you are better placed than we are to make such comments.

For those of us needing more help please educate us all as to what specific criminal offences you are referring to?

But having swerved the question in such a transparent fashion - yet again - to defend your beloved - here it is for you to have another go at -

"Regardless of whether there have been prosecutions of not, do you personally feel that any of the events I listed has actually happened?"

Why am I being asked to evidence your claims?

I am not asking you to evidence the claims. I asked what sort of evidence you would require me to produce in order ot convince you. You have obliquely hinted that you disbelieve my claims by pointing out the lack of prosecutions. To avoid confusion, misunderstandings etc, here are some simple questions to which I would appreciate simple and straightforward answers.

1) Based on your current knowledge of events, what is your overall opinion on the validity of my list of claims? For example, are they mostly wrong, or mostly exagerated, or mostly true but trivial, etc? (please don't mention lack of prosecutions).

2) For the ones that you disbelieve, is there anything I can do to change your opinion about threm? For example to provide links to youtube videos, or copies of correspondence with SCC's legal deparment, etc?

I am sure we will appreciate that your greater knowledge of the criminal justice system means you are better placed than we are to make such comments.

 

For those of us needing more help please educate us all as to what specific criminal offences you are referring to?

 

 

But having swerved the question in such a transparent fashion - yet again - to defend your beloved - here it is for you to have another go at -

 

"Regardless of whether there have been prosecutions of not, do you personally feel that any of the events I listed has actually happened?"

I haven’t professed to have a better criminal knowledge than anyone. I don’t see that it matters what I think either really.

You answer my question - as I know you like to tell people about your legal background - under what circumstances would all these things have occurred but no charges be brought.

Start with the one about the council officers lying in court if you liked

Mod Note

OK, posts have been removed for attacking the person & not the argument.

The very next person or persons making a personal attack can explain why they think forum rules don't apply to them at the Helpdesk

The thread will be reopened shortly so you all have time to read this

Do I not have a right to see the terms of a contract...- if not why ?

(Reply on that point only)

Probably not, as it's a private contractual matter to which you yourself are not party.

However, Freedom of Information Act might apply.

Probably not, as it's a private contractual matter to which you yourself are not party.

However, Freedom of Information Act might apply.

In general terms we can ask to see the Streets Ahead contract under the FOI. In practice SCC turn down many FOI requests for specific parts of the contact under one of the FOI allowable exceptions; usually commercial sensitivity, or that the document is already being prepared for release. Often it requires appeals to the Information Commisioner's Office to extract bits and pieces.

Ironically, one part of the contract still redacted in its entirely is Schedule 30, which lists what parts of the contract SCC and Amey agreed in advance were commercially sensitive.

Personally I can see no good reason why a supposedly publicly accountable body like SCC would contract to keep parts of such a document secret, nor why they should drag their feet over the other parts.

I haven’t professed to have a better criminal knowledge than anyone. I don’t see that it matters what I think either really.

 

You answer my question - as I know you like to tell people about your legal background - under what circumstances would all these things have occurred but no charges be brought.

 

Start with the one about the council officers lying in court if you liked

I suppose it would be the circumstance where nobody had brought charges, or it was unlikely that a conviction could be obtained, or where the matter had been reported but not thoroughly investigated, or where the investigation had not turned up enough evidence.

You seem to be arguing that a crime has only been committed when charges have been brought, we all know that this isn't true, crimes go by everyday without charges and even more often without conviction.