Tess   10 #13 Posted November 17, 2016 The 'reason' being that they get paid to do it. I guess the 'reason' became much better this morning due to unsocial hours pay (probably some kind of 'incentive' too). If someone asked me to do something that I had a moral dilemma with, I'd refuse to do it … sod the consequences. Shame.  Its nice that you have the luxury of turning down money, but not everyone is such a fortunate position. (And no, I don't agree with it, its total sneak tactics not to mention laws surrounding noise at that time of the morning!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Alcoblog   10 #14 Posted November 17, 2016 Damage to cars/bikes/cost of constant road resurfacing vs a few trees? No contest for me, we've still got lots of parks and greenery in our city. If the fate of a few trees is your major concern in life I envy you.  With that kind of logic, there'd be good reason/argument to chop down all the trees along somewhere like say … the Avenue des Champs-Élysées. It won't happen though.  ---------- Post added 17-11-2016 at 09:22 ----------  Its nice that you have the luxury of turning down money, but not everyone is such a fortunate position. (And no, I don't agree with it, its total sneak tactics not to mention laws surrounding noise at that time of the morning!)  Money is never a primary concern to me and yes, I have turned it down on many occasions if it's for something I don't agree with. It makes a point. I have my own set of moral values and sit comfortably within them. I detest greed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jomie   30 #15 Posted November 17, 2016 Alcoblog has the right of it. Would have thought that with increased pollution from traffic that trees are even more essential now than ever before. Never mind, now that the trees are gone folk will be able to park their cars on the pavement so that's alright! Doubtless SCC has gone into the legal side of this action but surely it can't be morally right to hoist cars out of the way when the owners have done nothing wrong? It is sheer, unadulterated vandalism coupled with sneaky, underhand behaviour. Those responsible for sanctioning this should be thoroughly ashamed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eccy Beach   11 #16 Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) With that kind of logic, there'd be good reason/argument to chop down all the trees along somewhere like say … the Avenue des Champs-Élysées. It won't happen though.  Maybe council shouldn't have got rid of fountain that used to be at the top of Fargate seeing as Rome kept the Trevi Fountain? Edited November 17, 2016 by nikki-red Fixed the quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
*Wallace* Â Â 333 #17 Posted November 17, 2016 To be fair to the council, they wouldn't announce the date before hand would they??? Â I would have thought there should have been a sign up before towing people's cars away. Â ---------- Post added 17-11-2016 at 09:50 ---------- Â A woman on Radio Sheffield just gave Toby a right bollocking for interrupting etc To be fair he handled it well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mediumfast   10 #18 Posted November 17, 2016 At the end of the day Amey along with Sheffield University run Sheffield The police and council are merely their enablers may as well get used to it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #19 Posted November 17, 2016 Damage to cars/bikes/cost of constant road resurfacing vs a few trees? No contest for me, we've still got lots of parks and greenery in our city. If the fate of a few trees is your major concern in life I envy you.  What damage do trees cause to cars and bikes?  The problem with dismissing it as "just a few trees, we've got plenty more" is that eventually we won't have "plenty more". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
AndyP728 Â Â 10 #20 Posted November 17, 2016 I can't believe folk are getting themselves arrested overs a few trees. Â TREES. Â Ridiculous. Just let Amey get on with it and go to work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eccy Beach   11 #21 Posted November 17, 2016 What damage do trees cause to cars and bikes? The problem with dismissing it as "just a few trees, we've got plenty more" is that eventually we won't have "plenty more".  They contribute to the terrible state of the roads, which leads to tyre damage and other maintenance issues - cycling through S7 has cost me over £100 in repairs/parts. I imagine the same can be said for cars.  And as a new father I'd be better off with a moon rover than a buggy pushing my daughter around some of the pavements.  I'm late to this party but as I understand it other trees are being planted, there isn't any conspiracy to deforest Sheffield it's just a maintenance issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Planner1 Â Â 428 #22 Posted November 17, 2016 I would have thought there should have been a sign up before towing people's cars away. If it was the Council towing them you'd be right. However, the Police have powers to remove vehicles and I'd think they are the ones who are arranging removals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #23 Posted November 17, 2016 The roads are in poor condition because of a chronic lack of maintenance, not because of trees. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jerky   10 #24 Posted November 17, 2016 The pavement on Rustlings road is dangerous,the trees should have been replaced years ago Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...