Jump to content

Council tree felling...

Recommended Posts

I suppose it would be the circumstance where nobody had brought charges, or it was unlikely that a conviction could be obtained, or where the matter had been reported but not thoroughly investigated, or where the investigation had not turned up enough evidence.

You seem to be arguing that a crime has only been committed when charges have been brought, we all know that this isn't true, crimes go by everyday without charges and even more often without conviction.

 

You're absolutely right about a lack conviction not being co-terminus with a crime not being committed, but then you can't go around calling the people you think 'might' have committed the crime, criminals.

 

I'll profess to not knowing details of the allegations but if someone is accused of lying in court (in public), I'd presume that would be easier to prove than some crimes which go undetected due to their deliberately secretive nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd presume that would be easier to prove than some crimes which go undetected due to their deliberately secretive nature?

 

It's hard to prove perjury: you have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the witness intended to lie to the court, not that they merely misspoke, misheard the question, etc.

 

One is example is that a witness told the court that "at protest X, the defendant said Y to me". When I spoke to said protester later, he told me that he never said "Y", but there were no other witnesses to corroborate one way or another. He was fairly annoyed.

 

Now, I have enough faith in the integrity of that protester to form an opinion that the witness had lied under oath, but it would be impossible to prove perjury in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case against Paul Brooke has been dismissed.

And here are some quotes from Mr Justice Male's ruling concerning the incidents on 22 Jan and the behaviour of security guards.

 

"a film of this [earlier in the day] incident ... does show that a punch was thrown by one of the security staff."

 

"At one point a security man pulled the protestor as she was on the ground by the waistband of her trousers. In my judgment this at any rate was inappropriate"

 

"As [Paul Brooke] did so [pushed at the fence], one of the security staff standing by the barriers (not one of those involved in attempting to remove the female protester) kicked out at his hand. This individual did not give evidence, but it is hard to think of any justification for his action."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here are some quotes from Mr Justice Male's ruling concerning the incidents on 22 Jan and the behaviour of security guards.

 

"a film of this [earlier in the day] incident ... does show that a punch was thrown by one of the security staff."

 

"At one point a security man pulled the protestor as she was on the ground by the waistband of her trousers. In my judgment this at any rate was inappropriate"

 

"As [Paul Brooke] did so [pushed at the fence], one of the security staff standing by the barriers (not one of those involved in attempting to remove the female protester) kicked out at his hand. This individual did not give evidence, but it is hard to think of any justification for his action."

 

Yet despite all these criminal assaults being filmed and recorded none of the perpetrators were arrested by our fine and upstanding and unbiased constabulary. Instead they arrested an elderly woman playing a plastic trumpet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here are some quotes from Mr Justice Male's ruling concerning the incidents on 22 Jan and the behaviour of security guards.

 

"a film of this [earlier in the day] incident ... does show that a punch was thrown by one of the security staff."

 

"At one point a security man pulled the protestor as she was on the ground by the waistband of her trousers. In my judgment this at any rate was inappropriate"

 

"As [Paul Brooke] did so [pushed at the fence], one of the security staff standing by the barriers (not one of those involved in attempting to remove the female protester) kicked out at his hand. This individual did not give evidence, but it is hard to think of any justification for his action."

 

As a senior judge has highlighted the behaviour of security staff employed by Amey, maybe the INNOCENT citizens of Sheffield should now consider taking legal action against Amey & their employees.

 

I also think it's about time Julie Dore faced some tough questions, without whose backing, this csee would not have gone ahead, as to why she is squandering council tax payers money on a fruitless court case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a senior judge has highlighted the behaviour of security staff employed by Amey, maybe the INNOCENT citizens of Sheffield should now consider taking legal action against Amey & their employees.

 

I also think it's about time Julie Dore faced some tough questions, without whose backing, this csee would not have gone ahead, as to why she is squandering council tax payers money on a fruitless court case?

 

Wasn’t it only one out of four that was fruitless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a senior judge has highlighted the behaviour of security staff employed by Amey, maybe the INNOCENT citizens of Sheffield should now consider taking legal action against Amey & their employees.

 

I also think it's about time Julie Dore faced some tough questions, without whose backing, this csee would not have gone ahead, as to why she is squandering council tax payers money on a fruitless court case?

 

Absolutely. If a judge is highlighting these things - SURELY there must be a court case in it? I understand finances are going to be an issue, but a crowdfunder would be pretty popular.

 

Julie Dore is squandering out council tax money on this nonsense, seemingly out of personal spite. She should be ashamed, and called to task on it. Or would that constitute 'personal abuse' - the shamed public official's excuse of choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So today was the first and only ever incident of a felling protester being tried at court on criminal charges. He was found not guilty of the only substantive charge - a public order offence, and given a conditional discharge for the shocking crime of taking 5 minutes to provide police with his name and address. It completely belies the SCC rhetoric of "increasingly dangerous" protesters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCC had wanted to extend their injunction against protesters by going for a 3 year term, restricting how they protest outside safety zones, restricting protest on private property and restricting support of protest via social media.

They tried to force named persons to accept the terms of this new injunction under threat of having court costs awarded against them for the application of the new injunction.

None of the named protestors signed such an undertaking and faced SCC in court over the last 2 days.

 

The judge basically said that both parties were to reach a settlement that he would then endorse.

He said that the protesters were right in refusing to sign the undertaking.

After a day and a half of negotiation (which the protestors have always requested), and SCC blowing more than £75k on lawyers and costs, an agreement was reached involving an extension of the existing injunction of only 18 months, no additional restrictions of legal protest on private property, protest outside the safety zones only limited to those currently accepted by law, no restriction of legal support on social media, no costs against the protesters.

 

I not certain, but I don't think anyone was required to sign any undertaking, but those involved have said they will be OK with abiding by the terms of the new injunction.

 

The 'pause' in fellings continues and protestors are hoping for formal mediation to resolve their wishes for environmentally sustainable management of street trees.

 

I hope I have summarised this OK, but would welcome any corrections if I have misunderstood or missed anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to trees. Lunchtime errands took me down Meadow Bank Avenue in Nether Edge today. It is lined by mature lime trees, which have been managed by regular pollarding. This keeps them at an appropriate size for street trees. A lesson in street trees management. This is a private road, so possibly residents pay for upkeep themselves, I don't know.

 

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

 

I can confirm that residents of Meadow Bank Avenue do, in fact, pay for the pollarding of those trees, and every other aspect of upkeep of the facilities and amenities in MBA and the adjoining Edge Bank. The residents have formed a limited company, appointed directors and each household pays a small annual charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.