Council tree felling...

[Robin-H 11]

STAG go into forelock tugging mode.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/392913244219104/permalink/972793092897780/

 

Support The Aristocratic Grovelling?

 

How are they being obsequious when in the same breath they say they have little faith in the government's plan because government tend to ignore consultation anyway?

[Guest makapaka]

How are they being obsequious when in the same breath they say they have little faith in the government's plan because government tend to ignore consultation anyway?

 

Why do STAG think the world is against them all the time?

[dave_the_m 61]

Why do STAG think the world is against them all the time?

Er, because SCC is cutting down down thousands of trees for no good arboricultural or engineering reason? Because SCC prosecuted a guy who had entered a safely zone (where felling had already been suspended), read a poem for 3 minutes, then left? Because they have been illegally withholding, for over 6 years now, important sections of the text of a 2.2 billion pound contract which ought to be open to public scrutiny? Because they have repeatedly lied to the information commissioner's office? Because they tried to get an opposition councillor imprisoned? Because they lied to the police to justify the 5am pre-dawn raid on Rustlings Road? Because their agents have been illegally cutting down trees in the middle of the night when they know they have no oversail permission? Because senior council law officers have knowingly allowed doctored versions of the injunction text to be published? Because council agents have threatened protesters with prosecution under the injunction when they're not even standing on the highway ('highway' being one of the words that are in in the injunction text, but which SCC conveniently keep forgetting to include)? Because council officers and agents have lied in court? Because Amey's bouncers committed criminal acts by refusing to display their SIA licences? Because at least 3 protesters have been hospitalised by the action of said bouncers? Because one bouncer was videoed from 3 different angles supplying an upper-cut to a protester, but the police refused to take any action because the protester themselves didn't make a complaint? Because the police have repeatedly arrested protesters for ludicrous reasons based purely on the say-so of bouncers ("I felt intimidated/harassed by that 74 year old man; or by that woman playing a toy trumpet") only to quietly drop the charges a few weeks later? Because SCC say that they can't afford proposed engineering solutions on Western Road which a) aren't even needed, and which b) Amey quoted them 10x the going rate?

 

Etc.

[Baron99 779]

Er, because SCC is cutting down down thousands of trees for no good arboricultural or engineering reason? Because SCC prosecuted a guy who had entered a safely zone (where felling had already been suspended), read a poem for 3 minutes, then left? Because they have been illegally withholding, for over 6 years now, important sections of the text of a 2.2 billion pound contract which ought to be open to public scrutiny? Because they have repeatedly lied to the information commissioner's office? Because they tried to get an opposition councillor imprisoned? Because they lied to the police to justify the 5am pre-dawn raid on Rustlings Road? Because their agents have been illegally cutting down trees in the middle of the night when they know they have no oversail permission? Because senior council law officers have knowingly allowed doctored versions of the injunction text to be published? Because council agents have threatened protesters with prosecution under the injunction when they're not even standing on the highway ('highway' being one of the words that are in in the injunction text, but which SCC conveniently keep forgetting to include)? Because council officers and agents have lied in court? Because Amey's bouncers committed criminal acts by refusing to display their SIA licences? Because at least 3 protesters have been hospitalised by the action of said bouncers? Because one bouncer was videoed from 3 different angles supplying an upper-cut to a protester, but the police refused to take any action because the protester themselves didn't make a complaint? Because the police have repeatedly arrested protesters for ludicrous reasons based purely on the say-so of bouncers ("I felt intimidated/harassed by that 74 year old man; or by that woman playing a toy trumpet") only to quietly drop the charges a few weeks later? Because SCC say that they can't afford proposed engineering solutions on Western Road which a) aren't even needed, and which b) Amey quoted them 10x the going rate?

 

Etc.

 

Good response.

[redfox 10]

Er, because SCC is cutting down down thousands of trees for no good arboricultural or engineering reason? Because SCC prosecuted a guy who had entered a safely zone (where felling had already been suspended), read a poem for 3 minutes, then left? Because they have been illegally withholding, for over 6 years now, important sections of the text of a 2.2 billion pound contract which ought to be open to public scrutiny? Because they have repeatedly lied to the information commissioner's office? Because they tried to get an opposition councillor imprisoned? Because they lied to the police to justify the 5am pre-dawn raid on Rustlings Road? Because their agents have been illegally cutting down trees in the middle of the night when they know they have no oversail permission? Because senior council law officers have knowingly allowed doctored versions of the injunction text to be published? Because council agents have threatened protesters with prosecution under the injunction when they're not even standing on the highway ('highway' being one of the words that are in in the injunction text, but which SCC conveniently keep forgetting to include)? Because council officers and agents have lied in court? Because Amey's bouncers committed criminal acts by refusing to display their SIA licences? Because at least 3 protesters have been hospitalised by the action of said bouncers? Because one bouncer was videoed from 3 different angles supplying an upper-cut to a protester, but the police refused to take any action because the protester themselves didn't make a complaint? Because the police have repeatedly arrested protesters for ludicrous reasons based purely on the say-so of bouncers ("I felt intimidated/harassed by that 74 year old man; or by that woman playing a toy trumpet") only to quietly drop the charges a few weeks later? Because SCC say that they can't afford proposed engineering solutions on Western Road which a) aren't even needed, and which b) Amey quoted them 10x the going rate?

 

Etc.

 

 

 

Come on Maka - keep up. There's overtime in this for you.:):)

[Guest makapaka]

Er, because SCC is cutting down down thousands of trees for no good arboricultural or engineering reason? Because SCC prosecuted a guy who had entered a safely zone (where felling had already been suspended), read a poem for 3 minutes, then left? Because they have been illegally withholding, for over 6 years now, important sections of the text of a 2.2 billion pound contract which ought to be open to public scrutiny? Because they have repeatedly lied to the information commissioner's office? Because they tried to get an opposition councillor imprisoned? Because they lied to the police to justify the 5am pre-dawn raid on Rustlings Road? Because their agents have been illegally cutting down trees in the middle of the night when they know they have no oversail permission? Because senior council law officers have knowingly allowed doctored versions of the injunction text to be published? Because council agents have threatened protesters with prosecution under the injunction when they're not even standing on the highway ('highway' being one of the words that are in in the injunction text, but which SCC conveniently keep forgetting to include)? Because council officers and agents have lied in court? Because Amey's bouncers committed criminal acts by refusing to display their SIA licences? Because at least 3 protesters have been hospitalised by the action of said bouncers? Because one bouncer was videoed from 3 different angles supplying an upper-cut to a protester, but the police refused to take any action because the protester themselves didn't make a complaint? Because the police have repeatedly arrested protesters for ludicrous reasons based purely on the say-so of bouncers ("I felt intimidated/harassed by that 74 year old man; or by that woman playing a toy trumpet") only to quietly drop the charges a few weeks later? Because SCC say that they can't afford proposed engineering solutions on Western Road which a) aren't even needed, and which b) Amey quoted them 10x the going rate?

 

Etc.

 

Great rant. Feel free to list the prosecutions arising from the above.

 

---------- Post added 17-06-2018 at 22:43 ----------

 

Come on Maka - keep up. There's overtime in this for you.:):)

 

You’re tiresome.

[hackey lad 3,955]

Great rant. Feel free to list the prosecutions arising from the above.

 

---------- Post added 17-06-2018 at 22:43 ----------

 

 

You’re tiresome.

 

It was a very good post , surely you can work out why there were no prosecutions , Maybe because of highly paid lawyers paid out of your council tax . And talking about tiresome

[Guest makapaka]

It was a very good post , surely you can work out why there were no prosecutions , Maybe because of highly paid lawyers paid out of your council tax . And talking about tiresome

 

No I can’t work that out. Why is no one being prosecuted for these crimes?

 

Is it because the police are against STAG?

 

Why are lawyers paid out of my council tax preventing bouncers and police officers being prosecuted?

 

Where are the perjury actions against those that have lied in court?

 

Where are the actions against those that have doctored documents?

 

Give me a break.

[hackey lad 3,955]

No I can’t work that out. Why is no one being prosecuted for these crimes?

 

Is it because the police are against STAG?

 

Why are lawyers paid out of my council tax preventing bouncers and police officers being prosecuted?

 

Where are the perjury actions against those that have lied in court?

 

Where are the actions against those that have doctored documents?

 

Give me a break.

 

Nowt to do with police . Why is your council tax being spent on high priced London barristers to represent the council . No perjury actions because these would need lots of money spent on them . The protestors have little ,the council have plenty (see first sentence)

[dave_the_m 61]

Great rant. Feel free to list the prosecutions arising from the above.

Your appear to be claiming that no action taken by the state or an organisation can be regarded as unfair or unjust unless that organisation has been prosecuted for that action. What a charmingly Pollyanna world view you have.

[Guest makapaka]

Your appear to be claiming that no action taken by the state or an organisation can be regarded as unfair or unjust unless that organisation has been prosecuted for that action. What a charmingly Pollyanna world view you have.

 

No - just highlighting that’s its odd that all of the crimes you have listed have been ignored.

[kaytie 11]

Er, because SCC is cutting down down thousands of trees for no good arboricultural or engineering reason? Because SCC prosecuted a guy who had entered a safely zone (where felling had already been suspended), read a poem for 3 minutes, then left? Because they have been illegally withholding, for over 6 years now, important sections of the text of a 2.2 billion pound contract which ought to be open to public scrutiny? Because they have repeatedly lied to the information commissioner's office? Because they tried to get an opposition councillor imprisoned? Because they lied to the police to justify the 5am pre-dawn raid on Rustlings Road? Because their agents have been illegally cutting down trees in the middle of the night when they know they have no oversail permission? Because senior council law officers have knowingly allowed doctored versions of the injunction text to be published? Because council agents have threatened protesters with prosecution under the injunction when they're not even standing on the highway ('highway' being one of the words that are in in the injunction text, but which SCC conveniently keep forgetting to include)? Because council officers and agents have lied in court? Because Amey's bouncers committed criminal acts by refusing to display their SIA licences? Because at least 3 protesters have been hospitalised by the action of said bouncers? Because one bouncer was videoed from 3 different angles supplying an upper-cut to a protester, but the police refused to take any action because the protester themselves didn't make a complaint? Because the police have repeatedly arrested protesters for ludicrous reasons based purely on the say-so of bouncers ("I felt intimidated/harassed by that 74 year old man; or by that woman playing a toy trumpet") only to quietly drop the charges a few weeks later? Because SCC say that they can't afford proposed engineering solutions on Western Road which a) aren't even needed, and which b) Amey quoted them 10x the going rate?

 

Etc.

 

Well said!