Council tree felling...

[Cyclone 10]

I know they said it.

 

I’m not entirely sure whether or not brian lodge understood what he was saying though - especially based on his contract knowledge displayed on the radio the other morning.

 

Did they say something wrong - absolutely - were they intentionally lying? - I’m not sure.

 

Well, I'd accept that he was either lying or incompetent in his role. If the councillors don't understand the contract and make public statements about it, how can they be expected to actually manage negotiations with Amey.

So either way, he should resign or be deselected.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2018 at 15:34 ----------

 

 

I’ve explained above - not explaining again - read my posts.

 

All you've said is that because other parts of the contract are redacted we can't be sure what it means.

The wording is very simple though, and it seems very straight forwards. It doesn't say up to 17500, or not more than, or less than, it simply says so that

 

so that 17,500 highway trees are replaced by the end of the term.

 

How can that mean anything other than 17,500 trees replaced by the end of the term?

Edited March 14, 2018 by Cyclone

[paula4sheff 10]

The opinion that the council lied about the targets - as I mentioned above I think it’s important to know whether or not they are obligated to cut down the 17500 trees or if somewhere elsewhere in the contract allows them to reduce this.

 

If it doesn’t then they would have lied by saying they won’t be removing 17500.

 

If it does then I don’t believe they should be accused of lying.

 

That’s why I said personally I’d wait and see what comes out of the recent media pressure and any further release of contract particulars before making my own mind up.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2018 at 15:32 ----------

 

 

I’ve explained above - not explaining again - read my posts.

 

So we have evidence in the form documented statements and a contract contradicting them all, and that's STILL not enough.

 

Is there honestly any point in your debating things? All the proof is laid out on front of you - absolutely everyone accepts it, because it's irrefutable.

 

it's pretty odd really, your refusal to accept evidence. I hope you never end up on a jury!

[Guest makapaka]

Well, I'd accept that he was either lying or incompetent in his role. If the councillors don't understand the contract and make public statements about it, how can they be expected to actually manage negotiations with Amey.

So either way, he should resign or be deselected.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2018 at 15:34 ----------

 

 

All you've said is that because other parts of the contract are redacted we can't be sure what it means.

The wording is very simple though, and it seems very straight forwards. It doesn't say up to 17500, or not more than, or less than, it simply says so that

 

so that 17,500 highway trees are replaced by the end of the term.

 

How can that mean anything other than 17,500 trees replaced by the end of the term?

 

I know what the wording says. I’ve never said otherwise. But I don’t think that the councils current explanation is beyond the realms of possibility- in that a larger quantity was put in there for contingency but they maintained control on the numbers elsewhere in the contract.

 

That may prove to be untrue as I said above - but I don’t think it has yet.

[paula4sheff 10]

I know what the wording says. I’ve never said otherwise. But I don’t think that the councils current explanation is beyond the realms of possibility- in that a larger quantity was put in there for contingency but they maintained control on the numbers elsewhere in the contract.

 

That may prove to be untrue as I said above - but I don’t think it has yet.

 

How about their suggestion that there were financial penalties? That was a lie. At best it was a case of woeful ignorance from someone who should have known it was lie.

 

Either way - totally unacceptable.

[Guest makapaka]

How about their suggestion that there were financial penalties? That was a lie. At best it was a case of woeful ignorance from someone who should have known it was lie.

 

Either way - totally unacceptable.

 

I think this proves that you're not reading my posts - as myself and Cyclone have just discussed that very point.

 

I did have a feeling.

[paula4sheff 10]

I think this proves that you're not reading my posts - as myself and Cyclone have just discussed that very point.

 

I did have a feeling.

 

You say that all the time as an attempt to get out of anything. Your answers are very unclear. A lot of 'ifs' and 'maybes'.

 

Do you acknowledge that Bryan Lodge lied, either maliciously or through incompetence? A simple yes or no would do.

[Guest makapaka]

You say that all the time as an attempt to get out of anything. Your answers are very unclear. A lot of 'ifs' and 'maybes'.

 

Do you acknowledge that Bryan Lodge lied, either maliciously or through incompetence? A simple yes or no would do.

 

See post #880

[paula4sheff 10]

See post #880

 

So is that a yes or no? All I read was some further attempt to refuse the council could ever, under any circumstances do anything wrong by skirting the question.....

[Guest makapaka]

So is that a yes or no? All I read was some further attempt to refuse the council could ever, under any circumstances do anything wrong by skirting the question.....

 

No thats you making things up again. This is what I said

 

"I’m not entirely sure whether or not brian lodge understood what he was saying though - especially based on his contract knowledge displayed on the radio the other morning.

 

Did they say something wrong - absolutely - were they intentionally lying? - I’m not sure."

 

I think the fact that you wish for everything to be binary is part of the problem.

[barleycorn 10]

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!

Do we know what is in the bolded yet? Depending on its contents it may, or may not, go into greater detail over the number of trees to be felled and who has the final say.

[the_bloke 17]

I know what the wording says. I’ve never said otherwise. But I don’t think that the councils current explanation is beyond the realms of possibility- in that a larger quantity was put in there for contingency but they maintained control on the numbers elsewhere in the contract.

 

That may prove to be untrue as I said above - but I don’t think it has yet.

 

If that's the case, that contract is extremely poorly written for something worth hundreds of millions and SCC shouldn't be trusted to deal with large scale contracts of any nature if they contain such ambiguity.

 

For a contract to state something as clear as them removing 17500 trees with a minimum of 200 a year and then later state an alternative set of figures suggests SCC don't know what they are asking for, how to ask it and should be held accountable for paying hundreds of millions for a wishy washy set of requirements.

 

Or you have to accept that they _are_ the requirements in the contract, that the contract is watertight as it should be considering it's millions of public money that's being spent, and the plan really is to remove 17500 trees.

[paula4sheff 10]

No thats you making things up again. This is what I said

 

"I’m not entirely sure whether or not brian lodge understood what he was saying though - especially based on his contract knowledge displayed on the radio the other morning.

 

Did they say something wrong - absolutely - were they intentionally lying? - I’m not sure."

 

I think the fact that you wish for everything to be binary is part of the problem.

 

Nothing is being made up.

 

The fact you don't recognise that a lie IS binary is the ENTIRE problem!

 

Stop muddying the waters - yes or no?