Guest makapaka Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) You'd be accusing a lot more than just me if that was the case! As you're well aware, wilful misinterpretation isn't one specific example. Your habit is to throw in questions, all the time, to try and change the course of what people are saying. For months you've tried to derail any discussions involving the council constantly. Is it any wondr most of the forum have you written off as an employee, or blocked you long ago? No one is claiming any facts about lying in court- we are repeating the suggestion that was made on the radio that it may have occured. So....here's a question for you. Do you still believe the council's claim that there are no targets for tree felling, despite the contract clearly saying there is? Just seen your edit. I’m unsure to be honest. The council and Justice Males stated that the final decision as to whether a tree is removed lies with the council and Brian lodge said that the 17500 is just to provide headroom. if that is true than I would disagree that there is a target. This hasn’t been cleared up yet so I’ll wait and see without conjecture. Edited March 13, 2018 by makapaka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza c Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 I see lord scriven wading into the argument re policing of protests. What did he do for sheffield when he was with lib dem? Nothing. Another politician trying to make a career out of telling us how things should be run, but did nothing when in his politician day job when he should have been doing something, reminds me if nick clegg. I have no affiliation to the libs/lab/or cons or any other party, I understand the concern raised re people being woken up at 5am with police that's only point I can see being an important issue to raise. But his letter in sheff star today is a waste of ink. We would rather have our police fighting knife/gun crime, burglaries etc, real issues affecting everyone, not just a few Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 I agree with your definition of ‘lying in court’ ; who are you referring to? Come on, name and shame on a public forum, I like a good libel case Did you miss the key word "IF"? ---------- Post added 14-03-2018 at 09:48 ---------- What did he do for sheffield when he was with lib dem? http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Lord_Scriven&mpc=Lords&house=lords&display=allvotes#divisions You could check his voting record to see what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Just seen your edit. I’m unsure to be honest. The council and Justice Males stated that the final decision as to whether a tree is removed lies with the council and Brian lodge said that the 17500 is just to provide headroom. if that is true than I would disagree that there is a target. This hasn’t been cleared up yet so I’ll wait and see without conjecture. The information I saw quoted mentioned a minimum number per some period of time. So if true, that would be a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 J The council and Justice Males stated that the final decision as to whether a tree is removed lies with the council and Brian lodge said that the 17500 is just to provide headroom. if that is true than I would disagree that there is a target. This hasn’t been cleared up yet so I’ll wait and see without conjecture. Once again the councillor is at odds with the published parts of the contract. Previously he 'mistakenly' claimed that there would be financial penalties to pay if the tree felling wasn't complete by the end of 2017, despite the contract saying nothing about any penalties. In fact, his record on explaining the councils role and relationship with Amey and the contract has been less than stellar hasn't it. So why on earth you'd give him the benefit of the doubt I don't know. You've said before you'll 'wait and see' apparently ignorant of the fact that this policy of wait and see will leave you looking at 17500 trees removed and you going, oh, turned out that they were right, well, there's nothing we can do now is there! Wait and see is a poor response to irreversible actions taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Once again the councillor is at odds with the published parts of the contract. Previously he 'mistakenly' claimed that there would be financial penalties to pay if the tree felling wasn't complete by the end of 2017, despite the contract saying nothing about any penalties. In fact, his record on explaining the councils role and relationship with Amey and the contract has been less than stellar hasn't it. So why on earth you'd give him the benefit of the doubt I don't know. You've said before you'll 'wait and see' apparently ignorant of the fact that this policy of wait and see will leave you looking at 17500 trees removed and you going, oh, turned out that they were right, well, there's nothing we can do now is there! Wait and see is a poor response to irreversible actions taking place. Not necessarily-the council are adamant that the final decision on tree felling lies with them and the figure of 17500 is just to give them headroom. The fact that the decision remains with them was also confirmed by justice males. Given the recent publicity I would imagine that the council are going to have to demonstrate this sooner than later due to media/public pressure and then we’ll see. The contract needs to be read and interpreted as a whole which unfortunately we’re not able to do at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paula4sheff Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Not necessarily-the council are adamant that the final decision on tree felling lies with them and the figure of 17500 is just to give them headroom. The fact that the decision remains with them was also confirmed by justice males. Given the recent publicity I would imagine that the council are going to have to demonstrate this sooner than later due to media/public pressure and then we’ll see. The contract needs to be read and interpreted as a whole which unfortunately we’re not able to do at the moment. The council have been 'adament' about a few things (such as financial penalties if trees are not cut down and that there are no targets) which have been shown to be lies. Why on earth would anyone 'wait and see' now? We've been lied to- the council have lost the trust of people. Onlyy a fool believes the words of proven luars- and the council seem to think we are all fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 The council have been 'adament' about a few things (such as financial penalties if trees are not cut down and that there are no targets) which have been shown to be lies. Why on earth would anyone 'wait and see' now? We've been lied to- the council have lost the trust of people. Onlyy a fool believes the words of proven luars- and the council seem to think we are all fools. Well I suppose they would say that they haven't lied - as if they have the final say on the removal, the 17,500 is not a target. I think we need to see evidence that this is the case mind - you seem to be treating this as some kind of "winning goal" in the whole discussion on the tree removal programme and I don't know why you are taking that approach. The main thing is surely whether or not the council are obligated to cut down 17,500 trees, if they are obligated I would agree that previoulsy saying that this wasn't a requirement would be wrong. If they are not obligated to cut down 17,500 trees, and they can demonstrate that they have the final decision on removal, I would say they haven't lied. Justice Males agreed that the council had the final decision mind, I don't know what evidence he based this decision on but it does confirm this in his report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paula4sheff Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) Well I suppose they would say that they haven't lied - as if they have the final say on the removal, the 17,500 is not a target. I think we need to see evidence that this is the case mind - you seem to be treating this as some kind of "winning goal" in the whole discussion on the tree removal programme and I don't know why you are taking that approach. The main thing is surely whether or not the council are obligated to cut down 17,500 trees, if they are obligated I would agree that previoulsy saying that this wasn't a requirement would be wrong. If they are not obligated to cut down 17,500 trees, and they can demonstrate that they have the final decision on removal, I would say they haven't lied. Justice Males agreed that the council had the final decision mind, I don't know what evidence he based this decision on but it does confirm this in his report. Brilliant! even the contract isn't evidence enough for you! I'll just leave this here. Again. It's from the contract. The council can say what the hell they want (and are doing). "The service provider [Amey] shall replace highway trees in accordance with the annual tree management programme at a rate of not less than 200 per year so that 17,500 highway trees are replaced by the end of the term." In other news - Sheffield has become an international embarrassment, rather than just a national one. The New York Times has a big report! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/world/europe/uk-sheffield-trees.html "For now, the Teagate trail seems to have gone cold. Ms. Unwin, who thinks the episode was designed to discredit protesters, said she had been told by her lawyer that there would be no further action against her or her husband." Who'd have thought it. hey?! No charges! Edited March 14, 2018 by paula4sheff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Brilliant! even the contract isn't evidence enough for you! I'll just leave this here. Again. It's from the contract. The council can say what the hell they want (and are doing). "The service provider [Amey] shall replace highway trees in accordance with the annual tree management programme at a rate of not less than 200 per year so that 17,500 highway trees are replaced by the end of the term." In other news - Sheffield has become an international embarrassment, rather than just a national one. The New York Times has a big report! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/world/europe/uk-sheffield-trees.html "For now, the Teagate trail seems to have gone cold. Ms. Unwin, who thinks the episode was designed to discredit protesters, said she had been told by her lawyer that there would be no further action against her or her husband." Who'd have thought it. hey?! No charges! No - thats you making things up on my behalf again. Why don't you read what i've actually put in my previous post so I don't have to repeat myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now