Sheffield Forum
Your message here

Latest Tree Felling, Sandford Grove Rd etc .

Home > Sheffield > Sheffield News & Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
18-06-2018, 14:23   #2041
redfox
Account Closed
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Total Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by makapaka View Post
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?"
  Reply With Quote
18-06-2018, 14:25   #2042
dave_the_m
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Total Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by makapaka View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote
18-06-2018, 14:38   #2043
makapaka
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Total Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox View Post
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 havenít professed to have a better criminal knowledge than anyone. I donít 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
  Reply With Quote
18-06-2018, 16:34   #2044
esme
raddled old hag
esme's Avatar
 
Admin Team
Joined: May 2006
Location: lost in time, lost in space and meaning
Total Posts: 43,058
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
_______
A persons worth is not decided by the colour of their skin, religion, sexual orientation, gender or ability.
It is decided by their words, deeds and how they treat their fellow human beings.
There are other forums if this gives you a problem.

Last edited by esme; 18-06-2018 at 16:43.
  Reply With Quote
18-06-2018, 17:03   #2045
Jeffrey Shaw
Mr
 
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Sheffield
Total Posts: 15,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
18-06-2018, 19:27   #2046
dave_the_m
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Total Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Shaw View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
19-06-2018, 07:27   #2047
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 70,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by makapaka View Post
I havenít professed to have a better criminal knowledge than anyone. I donít 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.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
19-06-2018, 07:36   #2048
Eccy Beach
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Total Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
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.
You're absolutely right about a lack conviction not being co-terminus with a crime not being committed, but then you can't go around calling the people you think 'might' have committed the crime, criminals.

I'll profess to not knowing details of the allegations but if someone is accused of lying in court (in public), I'd presume that would be easier to prove than some crimes which go undetected due to their deliberately secretive nature?
  Reply With Quote
19-06-2018, 09:03   #2049
dave_the_m
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Total Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eccy Beach View Post
I'd presume that would be easier to prove than some crimes which go undetected due to their deliberately secretive nature?
It's hard to prove perjury: you have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the witness intended to lie to the court, not that they merely misspoke, misheard the question, etc.

One is example is that a witness told the court that "at protest X, the defendant said Y to me". When I spoke to said protester later, he told me that he never said "Y", but there were no other witnesses to corroborate one way or another. He was fairly annoyed.

Now, I have enough faith in the integrity of that protester to form an opinion that the witness had lied under oath, but it would be impossible to prove perjury in this instance.
  Reply With Quote
21-06-2018, 11:05   #2050
Bob Arctor
Registered User
Bob Arctor's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Total Posts: 1,993
The case against Paul Brooke has been dismissed.
_______
If I'd known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need
  Reply With Quote
21-06-2018, 20:39   #2051
dave_the_m
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Total Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Arctor View Post
The case against Paul Brooke has been dismissed.
And here are some quotes from Mr Justice Male's ruling concerning the incidents on 22 Jan and the behaviour of security guards.

"a film of this [earlier in the day] incident ... does show that a punch was thrown by one of the security staff."

"At one point a security man pulled the protestor as she was on the ground by the waistband of her trousers. In my judgment this at any rate was inappropriate"

"As [Paul Brooke] did so [pushed at the fence], one of the security staff standing by the barriers (not one of those involved in attempting to remove the female protester) kicked out at his hand. This individual did not give evidence, but it is hard to think of any justification for his action."
  Reply With Quote
21-06-2018, 22:21   #2052
taxman
Registered User
taxman's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Walkley
Total Posts: 20,787
Send a message via MSN to taxman
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_the_m View Post
And here are some quotes from Mr Justice Male's ruling concerning the incidents on 22 Jan and the behaviour of security guards.

"a film of this [earlier in the day] incident ... does show that a punch was thrown by one of the security staff."

"At one point a security man pulled the protestor as she was on the ground by the waistband of her trousers. In my judgment this at any rate was inappropriate"

"As [Paul Brooke] did so [pushed at the fence], one of the security staff standing by the barriers (not one of those involved in attempting to remove the female protester) kicked out at his hand. This individual did not give evidence, but it is hard to think of any justification for his action."
Yet despite all these criminal assaults being filmed and recorded none of the perpetrators were arrested by our fine and upstanding and unbiased constabulary. Instead they arrested an elderly woman playing a plastic trumpet.
_______
I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

I am no longer Taxman!
  Reply With Quote
21-06-2018, 23:28   #2053
Baron99
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2017
Total Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_the_m View Post
And here are some quotes from Mr Justice Male's ruling concerning the incidents on 22 Jan and the behaviour of security guards.

"a film of this [earlier in the day] incident ... does show that a punch was thrown by one of the security staff."

"At one point a security man pulled the protestor as she was on the ground by the waistband of her trousers. In my judgment this at any rate was inappropriate"

"As [Paul Brooke] did so [pushed at the fence], one of the security staff standing by the barriers (not one of those involved in attempting to remove the female protester) kicked out at his hand. This individual did not give evidence, but it is hard to think of any justification for his action."
As a senior judge has highlighted the behaviour of security staff employed by Amey, maybe the INNOCENT citizens of Sheffield should now consider taking legal action against Amey & their employees.

I also think it's about time Julie Dore faced some tough questions, without whose backing, this csee would not have gone ahead, as to why she is squandering council tax payers money on a fruitless court case?
  Reply With Quote
21-06-2018, 23:32   #2054
Eater Sundae
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 7,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron99 View Post
As a senior judge has highlighted the behaviour of security staff employed by Amey, maybe the INNOCENT citizens of Sheffield should now consider taking legal action against Amey & their employees.

I also think it's about time Julie Dore faced some tough questions, without whose backing, this csee would not have gone ahead, as to why she is squandering council tax payers money on a fruitless court case?
Wasnít it only one out of four that was fruitless?
  Reply With Quote
21-06-2018, 23:36   #2055
paula4sheff
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2016
Total Posts: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron99 View Post
As a senior judge has highlighted the behaviour of security staff employed by Amey, maybe the INNOCENT citizens of Sheffield should now consider taking legal action against Amey & their employees.

I also think it's about time Julie Dore faced some tough questions, without whose backing, this csee would not have gone ahead, as to why she is squandering council tax payers money on a fruitless court case?
Absolutely. If a judge is highlighting these things - SURELY there must be a court case in it? I understand finances are going to be an issue, but a crowdfunder would be pretty popular.

Julie Dore is squandering out council tax money on this nonsense, seemingly out of personal spite. She should be ashamed, and called to task on it. Or would that constitute 'personal abuse' - the shamed public official's excuse of choice?
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:24.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2018