Council tree felling...

[Guest makapaka]

In other words you'll completely ignore a valid point with a convenient excuse. Your defense of the indefensible when it comes to SCC and Amey know no bounds.

 

No - I’m just trying to make the point that if the person who was prosecuted had not “very deliberately broken the injunction” in Dave_M’s own words - there wouldn’t be an issue for the courts to deal with.

 

That’s not defending anybody - it’s just a fact.

 

The other issues I haven’t passed comment on - it would seem silly to spend money on a prosecution they seemingly had no chance of winning as may well have occurred in other cases - I haven’t supported that either.

 

Same point goes in respect of Paula point above - it’s not defending people to disagree with certain actions by others. You can agree and disagree with both.

[Bob Arctor 11]

The £15K and £11K have already been raised through various crowdfunding and fundraising efforts.

 

That's good to know. Dore and Lodge's genius was to turn a highways contract into an internationally known civil rights issue. Brilliant work there.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2018 at 22:04 ----------

 

Here's SCC's response to my request to plant a damson tree in Burngreave Cemetery (I had promised to choose a rootstock that would mean it wouldn't grow very large and pointed out that the fruit would be available to anyone who wanted it):

We would ask that the tree is planted in your own garden, as if it is planted within the cemetery, it becomes the responsibility of Sheffield City Council, and with it, all the health and safety issues surrounding trees.

 

SCC's view? Trees are a health and safety nightmare. We don't want them. Does anyone want to try listing 'all the health and safety issues surrounding trees'? I can't even think of one, for a tree that size.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Bob Arctor

[Guest makapaka]

That's good to know. Dore and Lodge's genius was to turn a highways contract into an internationally known civil rights issue. Brilliant work there.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2018 at 22:04 ----------

 

Here's SCC's response to my request to plant a damson tree in Burngreave Cemetery (I had promised to choose a rootstock that would mean it wouldn't grow very large and pointed out that the fruit would be available to anyone who wanted it):

 

SCC's view? Trees are a health and safety nightmare. We don't want them. Does anyone want to try listing 'all the health and safety issues surrounding trees'? I can't even think of one, for a tree that size.

 

Why should the council take responsibility for a tree you want to plant?

 

Why don’t you offer public liability insurance in addition to the availability of fruit!

 

Come on.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Why should the council take responsibility for a tree you want to plant?

 

They take responsibility for all self-seeded trees, so the question is, why not this one?

[Guest makapaka]

They take responsibility for all self-seeded trees, so the question is, why not this one?

 

So you agree that the council should pick up the tab for a tree you decide to plant?

[Bob Arctor 11]

Why should the council take responsibility for a tree you want to plant?

 

Why don’t you offer public liability insurance in addition to the availability of fruit!

 

Come on.

 

Insurance against what - a leaf falling on your head?

[cgksheff 44]

Why should the council take responsibility for a tree you want to plant?

 

Why don’t you offer public liability insurance in addition to the availability of fruit!

 

Come on.

 

The benefits of such trees far outweigh any spurious hazards.

If the SCC response was genuine it exemplifies why it needs a good clear out.

[Cyclone 10]

No - I’m just trying to make the point that if the person who was prosecuted had not “very deliberately broken the injunction” in Dave_M’s own words - there wouldn’t be an issue for the courts to deal with.

 

That’s not defending anybody - it’s just a fact.

 

It's a fact with a slant on it though, and you ignore that if they hadn't taken out an injunction then there wouldn't be an injunction to break.

That's a fact as well.

[Bob Arctor 11]

The benefits of such trees far outweigh any spurious hazards.

If the SCC response was genuine it exemplifies why it needs a good clear out.

 

I can assure you it is genuine. One can only assume that the person who responded would be terrified to take a walk in a forest.

[Guest makapaka]

It's a fact with a slant on it though, and you ignore that if they hadn't taken out an injunction then there wouldn't be an injunction to break.

That's a fact as well.

 

No - no slant. I disagree someone should knowingly do something that could leave them liable for prosecution.

 

I don't agree with your final point either. The person who was prosecuted knew the injunction existed. You can't blame the law for the crime - anymore than when you hear people moaning about being caught speeding or for parking in the wrong place etc.

[dave_the_m 61]

No - no slant. I disagree someone should knowingly do something that could leave them liable for prosecution.

 

I don't agree with your final point either. The person who was prosecuted knew the injunction existed. You can't blame the law for the crime - anymore than when you hear people moaning about being caught speeding or for parking in the wrong place etc.

 

So do you condemn the Kinder Scout mass trespass of 1933? And agree with the imprisonment of 5 of its organisers? Perhaps you should campaign to have the plaque removed from the Town Hall which celebrates the trespass?

[Guest makapaka]

So do you condemn the Kinder Scout mass trespass of 1933? And agree with the imprisonment of 5 of its organisers? Perhaps you should campaign to have the plaque removed from the Town Hall which celebrates the trespass?

 

Don’t kid yourself that unlawful prevention of access to open countryside is the same as an injunction preventing people from climbing over safety barriers on a highways contract.