Are SCC/Amey out of control?

[Bargepole23 337]

Do you genuinely believe that to be the case? I can't think of anyone, other than the 'i'll chuck my litter down where i want it' mindset that wouldn't care about what is going on. Who still believes the council do a good job? And why? I'm really interested, as no one ever has a good word to say about them. They seem to offend anyone and everyone that has to deal with them.

I think the days of people thinking that thise in authority act primarily for the people vanished with the expenses scandal. The average man in the street now knows what most of these people are up to, and no longer holds the belief that councils and mps always do their best for others. Times have changed. People are more aware now- and I think the council may have quite a shock come election time....

 

It's possible to care about what our council do on our behalf and also to support the removal of trees. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

I'm happy for the council to try to restrict car use in the city centre, I'm happy for them to remove trees to restore pavements. Where they remove trees they replant where appropriate.

[andyofborg 11]

I have decided today to stop SCC wasting my money on there tree felling debacle by refusing to pay my council tax , let them take me to court and I will explain to the judge why I have stopped paying.

 

and then the judge the judge will say, you still have to pay and issue the necessary order to allow SCC to enforce the debt and at the very extreme you may end up in jail.

 

while you are embarking on your glorious journey to martyrdom trees will continue to be chopped down.

[Guest makapaka]

Let’s stick to the subject in hand, that of tree felling and not tarring everyone with the same brush.

I care about what happens in Sheffield, am a law abiding citizen and never thrown rubbish on the floor.

I didn’t say the council do a good job but on the other hand am not too fussed about a few trees. There are a lot more worthy issues that folk could take umbrage with than that of a few trees.

I take exception to the fact that protesters have so far cost the Sheffield tax payer in excess of £250,000 in legal fees.

 

Agree - with this.

 

It’s beyond a joke now.

[Cyclone 10]

No, it is the idiot tree protesters who are out of control. If they do not want to be 'wrestled to the ground' they know the answer: stay at home , mind their own business and let Amey get on with the job they are being paid to do.

There are many residents of this city who want these trees to be felled.

 

There don't seem to be that many.

A couple on the forum, who mainly come across as trolls to be honest, nobody I've spoken too in real life.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2017 at 10:56 ----------

 

Let’s stick to the subject in hand, that of tree felling and not tarring everyone with the same brush.

I care about what happens in Sheffield, am a law abiding citizen and never thrown rubbish on the floor.

I didn’t say the council do a good job but on the other hand am not too fussed about a few trees. There are a lot more worthy issues that folk could take umbrage with than that of a few trees.

I take exception to the fact that protesters have so far cost the Sheffield tax payer in excess of £250,000 in legal fees.

 

The protesters haven't cost the taxpayer anything, the council have refused to engage with the concerned citizens of sheffield, this has resulted in legal protests and the council have decided to spend money on legal action.

So you can add wasting taxpayers money to the list of reasons to vote them out.

[paula4sheff 10]

There don't seem to be that many.

A couple on the forum, who mainly come across as trolls to be honest, nobody I've spoken too in real life.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2017 at 10:56 ----------

 

 

The protesters haven't cost the taxpayer anything, the council have refused to engage with the concerned citizens of shefield, this has resulted in legal protests and the council have decided to spend money on legal action.

So you can add wasting taxpayers money to tahe list of reasons to vote them out.

 

Absolutely. All expense has come as a result of trying to ignore the views of people. They've spent money trying to prosecute membera of their own council don't forge who have opposed them. Isn't that just a bully state?

 

I do think the people who want the treeals gone are perhaps trolls, who those who don't understand the issue. I don't doubt there are one or two trees that need to be removed- but we're talking massive destruction of healthy trees here, not one or two which are a genuine problem. I'm not too sure why anyone would think a company such as amey, with aproven history of corruption, would be doing anything other than putting their own profit first. In my mind it's naive to think otherwise. Do people really think the protestors enjoy this? Getting pushed around by hired thugs, threatened, taken to court, riskimg potential jail time? I find it amazing that anyone would think negatively of them. They're not costing us money- the council are. We pay for the trees to be maintained- amey take that money, keep it, and destroy thise trees. If that isn't corrupt i don't know what is. If you want to 'stay at home and mind yiur business' thats your right- but don't criticise those who are willing to stand for something. There are many peolle throughout history who have done nothing.. And then there are thoae who have tried to make things better. I bet during the attempts to get women the vote or to abolish slavery there were peolle who thought the pritestors should 'stay at home and mind their own business' too.

Edited December 3, 2017 by paula4sheff

[dave_the_m 61]

They've spent money trying to prosecute members of their own council

 

Indeed. They wasted £70K on a failed private prosecution of Councillor Alison Teal, which they then tried to spin as getting off on a "technicality". In fact their case was so bad that the council's own QC dropped one charge on the morning of the trial, and the judge dismissed the other charge before Alison had even taken the witness stand. The judge (who had issued the original injunction) described Alison's interpretation of the injunction text as both "correct" and "reasonable".

 

In fact it would be more accurate to say the council blew £70K trying to get an opposition councillor falsely imprisoned on a technicality.

[monkey104 10]

Absolutely. All expense has come as a result of trying to ignore the views of people. They've spent money trying to prosecute membera of their own council don't forge who have opposed them. Isn't that just a bully state?

 

I do think the people who want the treeals gone are perhaps trolls, who those who don't understand the issue. I don't doubt there are one or two trees that need to be removed- but we're talking massive destruction of healthy trees here, not one or two which are a genuine problem. I'm not too sure why anyone would think a company such as amey, with aproven history of corruption, would be doing anything other than putting their own profit first. In my mind it's naive to think otherwise. Do people really think the protestors enjoy this? Getting pushed around by hired thugs, threatened, taken to court, riskimg potential jail time? I find it amazing that anyone would think negatively of them. They're not costing us money- the council are. We pay for the trees to be maintained- amey take that money, keep it, and destroy thise trees. If that isn't corrupt i don't know what is. If you want to 'stay at home and mind yiur business' thats your right- but don't criticise those who are willing to stand for something. There are many peolle throughout history who have done nothing.. And then there are thoae who have tried to make things better. I bet during the attempts to get women the vote or to abolish slavery there were peolle who thought the pritestors should 'stay at home and mind their own business' too.

 

my argument is ‘ What does the majority of Sheffield tax payers think’?

We do not know this. SF is not indicative of the way Sheffield folk think ( As much as we may think otherwise ).

Just because most of the posters here are not happy with SCC/Amey doesn’t mean most folk on SF support the tree protesters, indeed if folk aren’t interested in a thread they don’t bother making a contribution.

So therefore as an idea of how many are not interested we could look at the amount of posters wishing to stop the tree fellers on this thread and compare it to the list of actual SF members.

I am not arguing for the right and wrongs of tree felling I am just interested in knowing what proportion of the public support the protesters.

[paula4sheff 10]

my argument is ‘ What does the majority of Sheffield tax payers think’?

We do not know this. SF is not indicative of the way Sheffield folk think ( As much as we may think otherwise ).

Just because most of the posters here are not happy with SCC/Amey doesn’t mean most folk on SF support the tree protesters, indeed if folk aren’t interested in a thread they don’t bother making a contribution.

So therefore as an idea of how many are not interested we could look at the amount of posters wishing to stop the tree fellers on this thread and compare it to the list of actual SF members.

I am not arguing for the right and wrongs of tree felling I am just interested in knowing what proportion of the public support the protesters.

 

That's a very valid point. No way of knowing i guess- other than anecdotally. All the people I work with consider it a disgrace, and they're a varied bunch, but short of a general survey we have no way of truly knowing. I would however be quite surprised if too many were in favour given the amount of negative news coverage it's gathered from all sources.

[taxman 12]

Try requesting for it under the "Freedom of Information" act. You will not be able to get the full contract because it will contain commercially sensitive information, but the Council should provide some of the information that is in the contract.

 

People don't want "some" of the information. We pay our council tax which our council gives to Amey. Therefore we should be able to see and scrutinise the entire contract.

 

"Commercial sensitivity" my arse....it's because the council know they've been taken to the cleaners but don't want the paying electorate to find out.

[Cyclone 10]

Indeed. They wasted £70K on a failed private prosecution of Councillor Alison Teal, which they then tried to spin as getting off on a "technicality". In fact their case was so bad that the council's own QC dropped one charge on the morning of the trial, and the judge dismissed the other charge before Alison had even taken the witness stand. The judge (who had issued the original injunction) described Alison's interpretation of the injunction text as both "correct" and "reasonable".

 

In fact it would be more accurate to say the council blew £70K trying to get an opposition councillor falsely imprisoned on a technicality.

 

A freedom of information request has seen the release of emails planning how to spin that judgement as "a technicality".

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2017 at 19:52 ----------

 

SCC overrules both residents and the ITP

 

Even when survey results have shown that a greater number of households has voted to save the trees in their street, and even when the ITP has also recommended keeping them, SCC has, in most cases, overruled both opinions and insisted on removal. In Briar Road, S7, 100% of the residents who responded to the ‘Household Survey’ wanted to keep their trees; the ITP voted to retain them all, however SCC has ordered Amey to remove them.

 

As of 6th June 2017, out of the 150 trees that the ITP has voted to retain, SCC has ignored their advice 87.3% of the time and listed 131 to be cut down

 

Where people realise that they are being surveyed (the survey is delivered looking like junk mail), a vote against the tree removal results in the involvement of the ITP.

Which the council then routinely ignore.

 

One spot check

STAG has done it’s own ‘door-to-door’ surveys.

 

Our figures disagree with SCC’s published results.

 

Save Rivelin Valley Rd, Hillsborough & Wadsley Trees did their own door-to door survey in Balmain Road, Hillsborough, S6. There are 59 households on this street and they received 36 responses – these are the findings:

 

17 households (47% of respondents) had received Amey’s ‘Household Survey’

19 households (53% of respondents) had not received the ‘Household Survey’

14 households (39% of respondents) agreed with felling plans.

21 households (58% of respondents) disagreed with felling plans.

1 household (3% of respondents) did not know what they thought.

7 households said they had responded to the ‘Household Survey’

Of these, 4 agreed with felling, 3 disagreed

This does not match SCC’s figures, which said:

 

Only 4 household’s responses had been registered.

Of these, 3 agreed with felling, 1 disagreed.

 

Showed 58% against felling, compared to 39% in favour. By brexiteer standards, a hugely overwhelming majority against felling.

Quite a small sample though, I'll readily admit.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2017 at 19:53 ----------

 

From

 

https://savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/the-household-survey/

[paula4sheff 10]

A freedom of information request has seen the release of emails planning how to spin that judgement as "a technicality".

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2017 at 19:52 ----------

 

 

Where people realise that they are being surveyed (the survey is delivered looking like junk mail), a vote against the tree removal results in the involvement of the ITP.

Which the council then routinely ignore.

 

One spot check

 

 

Showed 58% against felling, compared to 39% in favour. By brexiteer standards, a hugely overwhelming majority against felling.

Quite a small sample though, I'll readily admit.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2017 at 19:53 ----------

 

From

 

https://savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/the-household-survey/

 

It's also worth nothing that more than half of the residents didn't even receive the survey....it would be speculation of course to insist that those people that didn't receive it lived directly near to trees that were to be cut down......

[Cyclone 10]

The published survey results (with the caveat of how the council seem to 'lose' some responses, at least according to the spot check above)

 

http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Copy-of-All-Survey-Results_Final-Copy-3.pdf

 

An extremely low response rate, perhaps due to the rather difficult method of filling in the survey and the delivery by hand of unaddressed envelopes with no official marking or indication on the envelope that it was from the council or it's purpose.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2017 at 20:24 ----------

 

Was there really only 1 out of 70 responses at Wingfield Crescent for example?

Perhaps so, as it only has 2 trees in total, neither of which are large nor have they done any visible damage to the pavement, road or kerbing.

Still, it probably has 0 trees now.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Cyclone