Council tree felling...

[redfox 10]

No - I was saying I’ll go on the website this week and have a look.

 

You accused me of accessing the contract via being an employee of Scc and amey.

 

I’ve explained to you that I will access it via the SCC website - I’m sorry that proved you wrong but it doesn’t make me a liar or a troll.

 

You still seem really offended by my posts but don’t question anyone else. You asked Robin H about the penalties yet have you?

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2018 at 23:36 ----------

 

 

I’m not dismissing that part of the contract - I’m just saying that you can’t just assume they are in breach because that date hasn’t been met - which bit of that are you struggling with? I haven’t invented anything- I just gave you some examples of why it’s not always that straightforward- why are you intent on trying to make me believe amey are in breach?

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2018 at 23:37 ----------

 

 

Ok - well I’ll have a look at the redacted form then. Maybe the unredacted bit talks about penalties.

 

 

(a) You did not mention a quick look on the website. You lied.

(b) Proved me wrong how? You lied.

© I am not offended by your posts just that you tell lies.

(d) You fill your boots with the redacted contract - and whilst your at it ask why it is only specific parts (and they are partly redacted anyway) you can't view the entire contract.

 

 

You have been shown to be a defender of SCC and Amey over several weeks of posting. You are incapable of proving that which you seek to prove. When challenged you seek to divert by wanting to know why posters don't ask other posters. A troll if ever there was one.

 

When you get a look at the contract let us all know.

[hackey lad 3,928]

No im not batting off any questions - the other poster has just decided to go after me - but everyone else can just say what they want apparently......

 

I said I would read the contract and got accused of being an employee of Scc or amey.

 

I explained it was on their website and would read it and got called a liar and a troll.

 

Stop playing the pity card , read the contract , then if you want come back on here and rebuff some questions , then alls well . Its quite simple really

[Guest makapaka]

Stop playing the pity card , read the contract , then if you want come back on here and rebuff some questions , then alls well . Its quite simple really

 

I don’t want pity hackey lad.

 

You must have seen that was out of order though surely?

 

I got hammered for saying I hadn’t read it - then hammered for saying I would read it:hihi:

[hackey lad 3,928]

I don’t want pity hackey lad.

 

You must have seen that was out of order though surely?

 

I got hammered for saying I hadn’t read it - then hammered for saying I would read it:hihi:

 

Well , the answers simple , as I said before

[Guest makapaka]

(a) You did not mention a quick look on the website. You lied.

(b) Proved me wrong how? You lied.

© I am not offended by your posts just that you tell lies.

(d) You fill your boots with the redacted contract - and whilst your at it ask why it is only specific parts (and they are partly redacted anyway) you can't view the entire contract.

 

 

You have been shown to be a defender of SCC and Amey over several weeks of posting. You are incapable of proving that which you seek to prove. When challenged you seek to divert by wanting to know why posters don't ask other posters. A troll if ever there was one.

 

When you get a look at the contract let us all know.

 

Read post #1440.

 

I said I would look at the contract.

 

You said that proved I was an employee of Scc and amey.

 

I said I wasn’t I could read it on the website.

 

You now keep telling me I’m a liar....

 

What have I lied about.

 

Please give me an example of something I’ve tried to prove.

 

Stop making things up.

[Cyclone 10]

I’m not dismissing that part of the contract - I’m just saying that you can’t just assume they are in breach because that date hasn’t been met - which bit of that are you struggling with? I haven’t invented anything- I just gave you some examples of why it’s not always that straightforward- why are you intent on trying to make me believe amey are in breach?

 

What's the point of looking at the contract at all, any of it might have been changed by variation orders or amendments, if it happens to be convenient to your argument at the time.

[Guest makapaka]

What's the point of looking at the contract at all, any of it might have been changed by variation orders or amendments, if it happens to be convenient to your argument at the time.

 

You keep talking about variation orders - where did I mention those? Where did I state these exist?

 

You now mention amendments - where did I mention those? Where did I state these exist?

 

The only reason you are attacking me is because you couldn't substantiate your original comments.

 

Regarding the Contract - I was responding to the other poster about whether the contract included penalty clauses.

 

When I said I would read it they accused me of being an SCC or Amey employee as apparently they believed that's the only way anyone could access the Contract. This is wrong as you know - it's on their website.

 

When I explained it was available on their website they called me a liar and a troll.....

 

This morning you are telling me that there's no point reading the Contract because there may have been subsequent Variation Orders (?) and amendments (?)

 

Bit of a trend developing here............

[dave_the_m 61]

YWhen I explained it was available on their website they called me a liar and a troll.....

 

You will find that large swathes of the contract are missing from the SCC website. Certainly, anything that even even vaguely hints at penalties will have been redacted, and indeed large amounts of things that shouldn't be excludable under the FOI "commercial confidentially" exception are completely missing.

 

For example the "Highway Tree Replacement Policy", a crucial document which could resolve many of the points STAG and SCC have been arguing over for years, isn't merely redacted, it's missing in its entirety. Not only that, Schedule 29 (Authority Policies) which contains that policy, is entirely missing from the website. As is Schedule 30, which lists which parts of the contact are supposed to be commercially sensitive. So its impossible even to check whether SCC have released all the parts of the contract which they're not contractually restricted from doing.

[Guest makapaka]

You will find that large swathes of the contract are missing from the SCC website. Certainly, anything that even even vaguely hints at penalties will have been redacted, and indeed large amounts of things that shouldn't be excludable under the FOI "commercial confidentially" exception are completely missing.

 

For example the "Highway Tree Replacement Policy", a crucial document which could resolve many of the points STAG and SCC have been arguing over for years, isn't merely redacted, it's missing in its entirety. Not only that, Schedule 29 (Authority Policies) which contains that policy, is entirely missing from the website. As is Schedule 30, which lists which parts of the contact are supposed to be commercially sensitive. So its impossible even to check whether SCC have released all the parts of the contract which they're not contractually restricted from doing.

 

Ok then. Thanks for that.

[redfox 10]

Try post 1438

 

This - "I’m confident there won’t be any penalty clauses. I’ll have a look and see sometime this week"

 

Please point out where that says you will be looking on the internet?

It doesn't. You lied.

 

Where does your confidence come from then?

Your lying - because you have no basis whatsoever for such an assertion - its made up - as has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum (and you refuse to acknowledge and ignore) whole swathes of the contract have been redacted - just because you are unable to see them (or recognise a clause for being what is actually is) does not mean there are no 'penalty clauses'.

 

Troll and defender of SCC and Amey -

Are you being paid to do this on this forum?

 

I suppose a far better question is why are you defending Amey?

Why are you defending SCC?

[paula4sheff 10]

Try post 1438

 

This - "I’m confident there won’t be any penalty clauses. I’ll have a look and see sometime this week"

 

Please point out where that says you will be looking on the internet?

It doesn't. You lied.

 

Where does your confidence come from then?

Your lying - because you have no basis whatsoever for such an assertion - its made up - as has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum (and you refuse to acknowledge and ignore) whole swathes of the contract have been redacted - just because you are unable to see them (or recognise a clause for being what is actually is) does not mean there are no 'penalty clauses'.

 

Troll and defender of SCC and Amey -

Are you being paid to do this on this forum?

 

I suppose a far better question is why are you defending Amey?

Why are you defending SCC?

 

The answer will be 'I don't work for either, if they do something wrong I'll admit it, I'm juat pointing out inaccuricies, show me where I've ever defended them' followed by a load of questions designed to confuse the issue being discussed with pedantric emphasis on individual words.

You'll also get 'why do you have it in for amey, they're just a good conpany trying to get on with their jobs' et etc.

[Guest makapaka]

Try post 1438

 

This - "I’m confident there won’t be any penalty clauses. I’ll have a look and see sometime this week"

 

Please point out where that says you will be looking on the internet?

It doesn't. You lied.

 

Where does your confidence come from then?

Your lying - because you have no basis whatsoever for such an assertion - its made up - as has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum (and you refuse to acknowledge and ignore) whole swathes of the contract have been redacted - just because you are unable to see them (or recognise a clause for being what is actually is) does not mean there are no 'penalty clauses'.

 

Troll and defender of SCC and Amey -

Are you being paid to do this on this forum?

 

I suppose a far better question is why are you defending Amey?

Why are you defending SCC?

 

Because I didn't state where I would get the information from i'm lying? I just said I'd have a look - sorry that your immediate thought was that must mean I was an employee of SCC or Amey. You were wrong there.

 

My confidence comes from the fact that I feel its unlikely that penalty clauses would be drafted into a UK construction and engineering contract - which bit of that offends you so much?

 

Why is saying that i don't think there will be penalty clauses defending Amey and SCC.

 

What do you want me to say - yes I think there will be penalty clauses - would that put me on the right side.

 

Why are people outraged by any alternative view in respect of this subject - and immediately default into an accusatory tone at anything that doesn't confirm with a pre-determined opinion.

 

Someone says there are penalty clauses - I said in my experience that was unlikely; you call me a liar, a troll, an employee of SCC or Amey, being paid by SCC or Amey and defending Amey and SCC.

 

Cyclone say that Amey are in serious material breach - I said that might not be the case and did they have any evidence of it; they said I was inventing Variation Orders, amendments to the Contract, was disingenous.

 

I don't think I'm the one with the issue personally - I'll leave it at that.