Council tree felling...

[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 61]

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 44]

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!)

[cgksheff 44]

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 ----------

 

 

Ah give over - the principle remains.

 

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

 

What principle?

 

You don't even know what you are arguing against.

Go and do some learning.

[paula4sheff 10]

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 ----------

 

 

Ah give over - the principle remains.

 

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

 

Good grief- the council must be paying well. If not and you're doing this for free, then they owe you. I've never seen such blind devotion to such a clearly flawed operation in all my life!

 

Almost impressive that you're still defending them really, given that even Bryan Lodge has chucked in the towel and legged it!

[Guest makapaka]

Good grief- the council must be paying well. If not and you're doing this for free, then they owe you. I've never seen such blind devotion to such a clearly flawed operation in all my life!

 

Almost impressive that you're still defending them really, given that even Bryan Lodge has chucked in the towel and legged it!

 

Not read any of the previous posts again Paula?

 

Thanks for another astute contribution.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2018 at 00:29 ----------

 

What principle?

 

You don't even know what you are arguing against.

Go and do some learning.

 

Feel free to educate me if any of this information you have contradicts my posts - I’m willing to accept being wrong.

[paula4sheff 10]

Not read any of the previous posts again Paula?

 

Thanks for another astute contribution.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2018 at 00:29 ----------

 

 

Feel free to educate me if any of this information you have contradicts my posts - I’m willing to accept being wrong.

 

Yes I've read them all. Your usual- avoid questions by asking different ones, and relentless defence of the council against any and all wrongdoing while trying to proclaim yourself a voice of reason.

 

That's about it isn't it? Say hello to Bryan from us all!

[Calvin Payne 10]

Hello All, I am the defendant in the injunction case who has been referred to through the last few pages. The four of us accused of breaching the injunction were all in different situations. It is a matter of fact that two of us were found in breach and two cleared. SCC employed a top level QC on excessive pay to try to imprison Councillor Teal. I landed those costs because he was prosecuting me at the same time (even though I didn't deny, indeed was proud of my actions). Councillor Teal did not break the injunction. In fact we disagreed over me doing so. Senior SCC and Amey people tried to mislead the court. The Judge dismissed the case without needing to hear ANYTHING from her defence. Not a thing. Councillors have lied ever since saying she was cleared on a 'technicality', which is totally untrue.

 

As for me I considered the injunction to have been unfair and wrongfully obtained. I therefore took a decision to publicly and repeatedly break it (and was criticised by many in the tree campaign for it). I was prepared, indeed expected, to be imprisoned for this. At the time I made it clear that I was encouraging others to take a similar stand to defeat the injunction and the policy. Whether subsequent events have justified that position is up to folk to decide.

 

My contempt of court is a civil matter, not criminal. It does not come with a criminal record. In the proceedings I wasn't asked to speak, nor plea. My actions were in the open and not disputed. The real crime was trying to imprison an opposition Councillor for something they didn't do. The sentence was up to the Judge but the application to the court in all four cases was "by SCC for the committal to prison of...". They were specifically asking for peaceful opponents to be locked up.

 

It's clear now that the policy is to be changed. It's also clear that a senior Councillor told the High Court last July that '6,000 of Sheffield's 36,000 street trees are to be replaced (removed)' when he knew the true figure was 17,500. The injunction cost us all a six figure sum. It has failed. Hardly any trees have been felled since. We have been right all along and the truth is coming out.

[Cyclone 10]

Don’t patronise me cyclone because you are unwilling to answer a basic question.

 

I think comparing the injunction by Scc with laws against gay sex is incongruous.

 

I'm sorry if you feel patronised but you appear to be unable to understand simple comparison or points that people make.

Instead you respond that that they're irrelevant (with no justification) or just ask more questions yourself instead of answering any.

Your ongoing blind defence of the council against every criticism is tedious.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2018 at 08:27 ----------

 

It goes back 6 pages now, since a comment about the council wasting a huge amount of money attempting to have an opposition councillor imprisoned, and you immediately leaping to the defence of the council.

 

The person who was convicted has a part to play in that unnecessary cost also.

 

Here, where apparently the convicted are to blame for the amount the council chose to spend on a QC from London and on two prosecutions that were apparently obviously going to fail.

[redfox 10]

I must give you credit maka - you put a shift in last night - On overtime were we?

 

Given your previous comments as to "reading the contract" and your bizarrely faithful defence of SCC you plainly are in the employ of SCC - I cannot think of anyone who would be so concerned about this other than someone wedded to SCC. You singularly failed to deal with the contract terms issue - which is what you always do when the issue your being asked to respond to is just that little bit too specific - or the answer might involve actual criticism of your beloved.

 

 

You can digest what Calvin has posted - I am all anticipation ...

 

(1) The case as against some protestors was dismissed without hearing argument - Is that true or not true?

 

(2) If it is true why has SCC suggested otherwise?

 

(3) Or is Calvin wrong in suggesting that they have?

 

(3) Why did SCC seek to imprison its own citizens - one a councillor? As opposed to other remedies.

 

(4) Is it an accurate reflection of the position that the court were told whopping great fibs as to the number of trees to be removed.

 

There you go - 5 - questions - answers on a postcard. Please.

[Bob Arctor 11]

I have described at some length why I think the two examples of protest are comparable. You have provided no argument to the contrary, just a bald rejection.

 

 

 

I think three of the four protesters prosecuted under the injunction were legally blameless. I think the fourth protester was morally blameless.

 

I think (with good evidence) that SCC obtained the injunction by seriously misleading the court. I think that parliament explicitly specified the maximum penalty for obstructing highway maintenance: a £200 fine max under section 303 of the Highways Act 1980. I think that SCC are using the injunction to harass and intimidate people who haven't violated the injunction, and are using it to penalise those who have far beyond the intention of Parliament, by for example using a London QC so that people found in contempt face ruinous costs for what Parliament think is a £200 crime.

 

Well argued. Makapaka's argument that because a law can be applied it must be right that it's applied would be news to the Crown Prosecution Service. They make decisions based on whether it's in the public interest to bring criminal prosecutions. It's hard to see how SCC's decision to pursue this civil injunction so vigorously and with such an expensive lawyer was in the public interest.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2018 at 08:57 ----------

 

Hello All, I am the defendant in the injunction case who has been referred to through the last few pages. The four of us accused of breaching the injunction were all in different situations. It is a matter of fact that two of us were found in breach and two cleared. SCC employed a top level QC on excessive pay to try to imprison Councillor Teal. I landed those costs because he was prosecuting me at the same time (even though I didn't deny, indeed was proud of my actions). Councillor Teal did not break the injunction. In fact we disagreed over me doing so. Senior SCC and Amey people tried to mislead the court. The Judge dismissed the case without needing to hear ANYTHING from her defence. Not a thing. Councillors have lied ever since saying she was cleared on a 'technicality', which is totally untrue.

 

As for me I considered the injunction to have been unfair and wrongfully obtained. I therefore took a decision to publicly and repeatedly break it (and was criticised by many in the tree campaign for it). I was prepared, indeed expected, to be imprisoned for this. At the time I made it clear that I was encouraging others to take a similar stand to defeat the injunction and the policy. Whether subsequent events have justified that position is up to folk to decide.

 

My contempt of court is a civil matter, not criminal. It does not come with a criminal record. In the proceedings I wasn't asked to speak, nor plea. My actions were in the open and not disputed. The real crime was trying to imprison an opposition Councillor for something they didn't do. The sentence was up to the Judge but the application to the court in all four cases was "by SCC for the committal to prison of...". They were specifically asking for peaceful opponents to be locked up.

 

It's clear now that the policy is to be changed. It's also clear that a senior Councillor told the High Court last July that '6,000 of Sheffield's 36,000 street trees are to be replaced (removed)' when he knew the true figure was 17,500. The injunction cost us all a six figure sum. It has failed. Hardly any trees have been felled since. We have been right all along and the truth is coming out.

 

You have my utmost respect for your actions and for sticking to your principles in the face of such unbelievable bullying from SCC. I'm pleased to hear that fundraising has covered the costs levied against you - please let us know if that's not the case. Thanks.