Guest makapaka   #1609 Posted May 10, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bob Arctor   11 #1610 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #1611 Posted May 10, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Phanerothyme   12 #1612 Posted May 10, 2018 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #1613 Posted May 10, 2018 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bob Arctor   11 #1614 Posted May 10, 2018 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
cgksheff   44 #1615 Posted May 11, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #1616 Posted May 11, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bob Arctor   11 #1617 Posted May 11, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #1618 Posted May 11, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
dave_the_m   61 #1619 Posted May 11, 2018 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #1620 Posted May 11, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...