Jump to content

Latest Tree Felling, Sandford Grove Rd etc .

Recommended Posts

On 11/02/2019 at 23:41, makapaka said:

No - the council could have been wrong - it doesn’t mean the police acted on that.

 

Youre assuming that the police didn’t act independently of the council.

 

i hope they didn’t.

A few pages ago you were arguing specifically that the police DID act independently and that the council were not involved (despite all the evidence to the contrary).  Which happens to mean that the council aren't to blame (despite all the evidence to the contrary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bob Arctor said:

Councillors and council employees are public servants. Some Sheffield councillors and council officers have interpreted public service as "lying to the public to protect the financial interests of a private company". Anyone complicit in that clearly needs to be barred from office/sacked 

Prosecuted even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

A few pages ago you were arguing specifically that the police DID act independently and that the council were not involved (despite all the evidence to the contrary).  Which happens to mean that the council aren't to blame (despite all the evidence to the contrary).

Yes that’s still what I’m arguing you either haven’t read or understood my post correctly.

 

i didn’t say the council weren’t involved -

i said I didn’t think the police acted on their direction - and that they acted independently.

 

Do you believe the police worked at the behest of the council and arrested people on their instruction? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bob Arctor said:

Councillors and council employees are public servants. Some Sheffield councillors and council officers have interpreted public service as "lying to the public to protect the financial interests of a private company". Anyone complicit in that clearly needs to be barred from office/sacked 

100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Yes that’s still what I’m arguing you either haven’t read or understood my post correctly.

 

i didn’t say the council weren’t involved -

i said I didn’t think the police acted on their direction - and that they acted independently.

 

Do you believe the police worked at the behest of the council and arrested people on their instruction? 

So you ARE defending the council, despite claiming you weren't, and despite there now having admitted to misleading people.

 

And yes, the council specifically requested the presence of the police and asked them to make arrests under inappropriate legislation.  The police didn't dream that up on their own.

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So you ARE defending the council, despite claiming you weren't, and despite there now having admitted to misleading people.

 

And yes, the council specifically requested the presence of the police and asked them to make arrests under inappropriate legislation.  The police didn't dream that up on their own.

I've just started on this thread and I am 100% against the tree felling and think the council are a disgrace and also have little faith in SYP. Also just from scanning the last 2-3 pages, it looks like you've got a vendetta going against that poster, and are ignoring what they are saying. Maybe take a step back and try get what they are saying rather than assuming they are the devil incarnate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to clarify if they are defending the council.  They claim that they aren't whilst in the same breath saying that it isn't the councils fault...

I have no vendetta, I am calling out a 200 page long pattern of defending the council and Amey at every step though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A Sheffield council spokesperson said: “We will undertake the agreed actions (to apologise for lying) within the timescales outlined in the ombudsman report and consider whether any lessons can be learnt as a result.”

 

Consider whether any lessons can be learnt!  Its fairly obvious that the lesson SCC need to learn is not to purposefully lie to the people of Sheffield! 😄

 

Somebody either made the decision to lie, gave the order to lie or sanctioned it. That person should be sacked for bringing the council into serious disrepute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

So you ARE defending the council, despite claiming you weren't, and despite there now having admitted to misleading people.

 

And yes, the council specifically requested the presence of the police and asked them to make arrests under inappropriate legislation.  The police didn't dream that up on their own.

No I’m not.

 

Ill repeat it again - since the information came out on the wrongful arrests I haven’t commented about the councils actions - only that of the the police.

 

my only point was that I don’t believe the police made arrests on the councils instruction. to so so would mean the police force was under direction of the council.

 

now if you think a councillor told a police officer to arrest someone - and they did so without considering whether it was justified that is your opinion.

 

i would like to think a police officer wouldn’t do that.

 

thats not defending the council - it’s trusting the integrity of the police officers. 

 

 

Edited by makapaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, makapaka said:

No I’m not.

 

Ill repeat it again - since the information came out on the wrongful arrests I haven’t commented about the councils actions - only that of the the police.

 

my only point was that I don’t believe the police made arrests on the councils instruction. to so so would mean the police force was under direction of the council.

 

now if you think a councillor told a police officer to arrest someone - and they did so without considering whether it was justified that is your opinion.

 

i would like to think a police officer wouldn’t do that.

 

thats not defending the council - it’s trusting the integrity of the police officers. 

 

 

Hmmmm . I blame Thatcher. She started all that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should imagine that what actually happened just before the first wave of arrests was something along the lines of:

 

A senior SCC bod requests a meeting with a senior SYP bod to complain that protesters have been blocking felling and that the police, when called, aren't doing anything (because they can't think of any legal justification for an arrest). They agree that legal teams from SCC and SYP should get their heads together and find a suitable law. Someone manages to dig up a trade union law  about stopping someone from their lawful work by harassment etc.  At a further meeting between senior staff, it's agreed that this law will be used on any future protesters.  Amey workers and police constables are briefed about the new "rules of engagement". The next time the police are called, the protesters are arrested.

 

Then, the CPS reviews the cases, finds absolutely no evidence of harassment and intimidation, and drops all the cases.

 

After a while, the police stop arresting protesters because the CPS have shouted at them.

 

So SCC apply for an injunction instead.

 

Then protesters find ways round the wording of the injunction, so SCC and SYP get their heads together again, and this time their legal teams discover section 303 of the highways act - interfering with highway maintenance - which is a  level 1 offence (for comparison, littering in a public is a much more serious level 4 offence). Armed with this, the bouncers are instructed to use "reasonable force to prevent a crime", which as it turns out included punching and kicking ; all while the police looked on impassively.

 

Then Amey / security staff discovered that if they made any allegation against a protester, that protester would be immediately arrested, and likely given bail conditions not to go to any further protests. There was then a spate of ludicrous allegations ("he racially abused me", "he assaulted me", "I'm a witness to the assault and he tried to intimate me as a witness"). Every one of these cases was eventually dropped or lost at court. No Amey or security staff were ever arrested or prosecuted for any of their assaults or blatant lying to the police.

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
×

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.