A little poem about trees..

[lectrolove 10]

"Some people live in ugly places therefore everyone should live in ugly places". It might interest the OP to know that there's a Burngreave group under the STAG umbrella so I think they do understand the fuss.

[monkey104 10]

It's about a little more than trees though isn't it- as anyone who bothers to read the issue would now know.

 

Why you've got so much time to write a 'poem' about people who are willing to risk prosecution to protect the neighborhoods they live is beyond me.

 

No time to write about anything about the corruption of Amey or the state of the council though?

 

It beats me why people mock the tree protesters- if you don't agree with them, fair enough (although I find it very strange why anyone would want to see healthy trees felled that don't need to be). But why mock people who are doing something, for no personal gain, to highlight the PFI deals, the lies, and the breakdown of democracy across the City to the wider country and indeed the world?

 

There's plenty of things worth mocking and railing against in the world- people protesting at a greedy and corrupt multinational company isn't one of them.

 

Well, will you make up your minds?

It was about trees, about how it effects the quality of air and the habitat of birds and the one toed neck wringer until it was realised that no one was really bothered about the trees ( most of us are still not bothered).

 

You were not getting your own way and realised that they were still going to come down.

You have now made it about the contract with Amey at cost to the majority of the taxpayer who really doesn’t give a stuff about the trees.

And if the council were really worried about the legality of the contract and their part in it well, knowing today’s society they will be hand wringing in the social media and more back stabbing and arse covering than you can shake a sh i tty stick at.

It makes you look like the spoilt children you are.

[rabbitfluff 10]

Ha absolutely Wonderful. Thank you. This made me reminisce fondly about the drivel my sister used to write (and recite. at length) when she was 12.

 

Aren't the tree huggers exactly not NIMBYS given they don't want any tree chopped down unnecessarily?

[paula4sheff 10]

"Some people live in ugly places therefore everyone should live in ugly places". It might interest the OP to know that there's a Burngreave group under the STAG umbrella so I think they do understand the fuss.

 

It might also help if the OP wasn't so insanely judgmental and closeted as to think that if you live in certain areas of the city you lead a certain type of life and think a certain way.

 

It's a 'poem' written from a point of total ignorance, looking down at a significant portion of Sheffield, who apparently, because of their geographical location or financial wealth don't care about trees, Amey or the council.

[leftylou 10]

I remember reading a post on the STAG group where someone said that they should keep the trees of Broomhill as that was where the private schools are.

 

Geo-Atkinson says that they don't want trees chopping down? Why? Why so blinkered? If they are dead, dying, diseased or disrupting people's houses, or the pathways that our old folk have to get around each day, then why not? If it's going to cost too much money to look after them as they get older then why not cut them down? As an authority, there is no money knocking around. When they signed the contract with AMEY it was done on the basis that AMEY would replace 17500 street trees. That was the agreement, and there is no money to alter that agreement.

 

The vast majority of Sheffield doesn't care, the majority on the streets affected don't care, that's why they didn't fill in their surveys. What don't you understand?

[lectrolove 10]

I remember reading a post on the STAG group where someone said that they should keep the trees of Broomhill as that was where the private schools are.

 

Geo-Atkinson says that they don't want trees chopping down? Why? Why so blinkered? If they are dead, dying, diseased or disrupting people's houses, or the pathways that our old folk have to get around each day, then why not? If it's going to cost too much money to look after them as they get older then why not cut them down? As an authority, there is no money knocking around. When they signed the contract with AMEY it was done on the basis that AMEY would replace 17500 street trees. That was the agreement, and there is no money to alter that agreement.

 

The vast majority of Sheffield doesn't care, the majority on the streets affected don't care, that's why they didn't fill in their surveys. What don't you understand?

 

Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about this? Are you related to someone called makapaka? Why are you determined to turn it into a class warfare issue? If you don't care about the trees don't get involved in the protests, it's that simple. STAG have never disputed that some trees are diseased, dying or dead and that those trees need to be removed.

[leftylou 10]

If you don't care about the trees don't get involved in the protests, it's that simple.

 

Really? Really?

 

I pay council tax to Sheffield, so like everyone else, I am intimately involved. The costs of the feelings have now risen to £35K a day. That only comes from our taxes. We are paying for these people to fill up their otherwise humdrum days. I am involved, we all are, it's just that most of us can't afford it.

 

Don't lecture the rest of us who are paying for the fact that the retirees and itinerants of Hunter's Bar haven't got hobbies.

[Owethemnowt 10]

Firstly, I found it tedious and boring. I couldn't finish it. I couldn't justify wasting a few more seconds of life on it.

[leftylou 10]

Yet you chose to waste more time on a silly answer. Well done.

[NewBiz 10]

I lost the will to live about half way through. I found it childish and clunky I'm afraid