Council tree felling...

[dave_the_m]

Ok - so was the protestor at fault for breaching the injunction? Is that what led them to be prosecuted?

 

SCC brought a civil suit against the protester because they felt he had violated the injunction. The judge agreed, and so awarded civil costs plus a criminal penalty.

 

As I already explained above, I think that the protester was legally culpable, while morally blameless.

 

I notice that you have pointedly failed to answer one simple question. I shall ask it again:

 

In the other case (Kinder Scout), do you consider the protesters not blameless?

[Guest makapaka]

Stop it Maka you always come down on that side Is it because of a feeling of fair play ?

 

Im not quite sure what you’re asking but I think there should be a better balance in the discussion on here cos it’s predominantly people saying everything the council / amey do is wrong. So yes - some fair play.

 

I think some of the councils failings are true but not all of them.

 

To be honest I think some of the posters need to rationalise their position a bit. There’s no acknowledgement of anything negative on the part of the opposition to the council. It’s why you get people bringing up gay sex, mass trespass, human rights crises and international scandals to support their position sometimes - rather than just saying- yeah that wasn’t quite right.

 

I think that weakens their position - cos it’s ludicrous to compare those things.

 

A narrowing of each parties position might get it resolved.

[cgksheff]

SCC could have produced a sensible and environmentally acceptable street tree inventory and management policy .... years ago.

Instead, they embarked upon a damaging series of operations alongside Amey and others.

When questioned, they lied and obfuscated whilst continuing to fell trees unnecessarily.

It was this that led people to take action.

Instead of adressing their own failings, SCC chose a ridiculous process of involving SPY, security staff and lawyers to protect their continued incompetence.

 

They still don't have a management plan. They still continue to pay incompetent officers.

 

Give over.

Edited May 11, 2018 by cgksheff

[Guest makapaka]

SCC brought a civil suit against the protester because they felt he had violated the injunction. The judge agreed, and so awarded civil costs plus a criminal penalty.

 

As I already explained above, I think that the protester was legally culpable, while morally blameless.

 

I notice that you have pointedly failed to answer one simple question. I shall ask it again:

 

In the other case (Kinder Scout), do you consider the protesters not blameless?

 

Yes - I don’t think the mass trespass was wrong - so what?

[dave_the_m]

Yes - I don’t think the mass trespass was wrong - so what?

 

Because earlier you were taking the stance that because a protester knew he was breaking the law, he deserved to be punished. It appears you are selective in applying this logic.

 

I have repeatedly explained to you in great depth why I think Kinder Scout and trees are morally comparable; you have repeatedly failed to address any of my points, but have instead just stated that comparisons are "ludicrous" without providing any reasons.

[redfox]

Answering none of the points I put to you - won’t be long now until you call me out for avoiding questions - followed by liar then troll no doubt.

 

All I said was that the person was responsible for their actions - does no one agree?

 

 

 

I call you out - answer the question as to why SCC

"decided to utilise a seriously expensive advocate (who went on and told them some of the case was garbage) when anyone with a brain would have worked that one out. It is not as if there are no briefs oop north who could have done the job"

 

I know the legal dept is shut now but you with your special inside knowledge will be well able to answer that direct and specific question.

[Guest makapaka]

Answering none of the points I put to you - won’t be long now until you call me out for avoiding questions - followed by liar then troll no doubt.

 

All I said was that the person was responsible for their actions - does no one agree?

 

 

 

I call you out - answer the question as to why SCC

"decided to utilise a seriously expensive advocate (who went on and told them some of the case was garbage) when anyone with a brain would have worked that one out. It is not as if there are no briefs oop north who could have done the job"

 

I know the legal dept is shut now but you with your special inside knowledge will be well able to answer that direct and specific question.

 

I don’t have any inside knowledge- you made that up.

 

I don’t know where your quote came from - I was referring to the person that Dave_m explained had been prosecuted.

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2018 at 23:42 ----------

 

Because earlier you were taking the stance that because a protester knew he was breaking the law, he deserved to be punished. It appears you are selective in applying this logic.

 

I have repeatedly explained to you in great depth why I think Kinder Scout and trees are morally comparable; you have repeatedly failed to address any of my points, but have instead just stated that comparisons are "ludicrous" without providing any reasons.

 

The mass trespass wasn’t breaking an injunction.

 

You’re comparing the morality of two different arguments- you could add anything you like to that argument - suffragettes/conscientious objectors/Gandhi etc - it’s incongruous to the discussion.

[dave_the_m]

The mass trespass wasn’t breaking an injunction.

 

You’re comparing the morality of two different arguments- you could add anything you like to that argument - suffragettes/conscientious objectors/Gandhi etc - it’s incongruous to the discussion.

 

So is your argument that it may be morally ok to break laws, but it's never morally ok to break an injunction?

[cgksheff]

Fairly nonsensicle to continue posting when the antagonist hasn't even seen/read the injunction.

[Guest makapaka]

So is your argument that it may be morally ok to break laws, but it's never morally ok to break an injunction?

 

No - I know you’ve tried really hard to frame that argument but the circumstances are vastly different.

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2018 at 23:56 ----------

 

Fairly nonsensicle to continue posting when the antagonist hasn't even seen/read the injunction.

 

Ah give over - the principle remains.

 

And I’m not an antagonist thank you very much (the arrogance!)