Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[RollingJ 2,035]

3 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

This is the thing I don't get...

 

As an example and in true SF tradition, it's perfectly acceptable to criticise a 'prospective' PM candidate based on what 'we think' they 'may' do 'should' they get the job...

... but we mustn't criticise SCC, but instead we should make excuses for them, even though they've once again proven themselves to be a load of incompetents who seem to have little clue on how to manage anything.

 

But it's all glossed over and forgiven by many on here because they happen to wear to same coloured rosette...

Totally agree. And I wonder which council groveller reported those posts?

 

If it wasn't for the fact that I don't want to sign up to 'The Star', I would go and find the article and repost it.

[Bargepole23 337]

56 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/plans-for-huge-shipping-container-complex-with-big-screen-on-sheffields-fargate-faces-problem-over-flooding-fears-3753734
 

 

So the problem lies with the process, there is no statutory requirement where temporary structures are concerned. Seems like SCC followed the required process but the process itself has bee inadequate in this case.

35 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Totally agree. And I wonder which council groveller reported those posts?

 

If it wasn't for the fact that I don't want to sign up to 'The Star', I would go and find the article and repost it.

Not me, that's for sure.

[RollingJ 2,035]

1 minute ago, Bargepole23 said:

So the problem lies with the process, there is no statutory requirement where temporary structures are concerned. Seems like SCC followed the required process but the process itself has bee inadequate in this case.

No 'statutory requirement' - but you would think it might have been a good idea, providing of course that the council even bothered to look what they were placing a big, heavy structure over/very, very near?

[Bargepole23 337]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

No 'statutory requirement' - but you would think it might have been a good idea, providing of course that the council even bothered to look what they were placing a big, heavy structure over/very, very near?

Maybe so, but after years of Tory funding cuts the planning dept or whoever approves is probably very stretched.

[RollingJ 2,035]

4 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

So the problem lies with the process, there is no statutory requirement where temporary structures are concerned. Seems like SCC followed the required process but the process itself has bee inadequate in this case.

Not me, that's for sure.

I didn't say it was, but I do have my suspicions as to the culprit. No problem if they try the same trick with recent posts, though - I have saved the page to local storage.

Just now, Bargepole23 said:

Maybe so, but after years of Tory funding cuts the planning dept or whoever approves is probably very stretched.

now you sound like a council apologist.😜

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

22 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

So the problem lies with the process, there is no statutory requirement where temporary structures are concerned. Seems like SCC followed the required process but the process itself has bee inadequate in this case.

Not me, that's for sure.

Hmmm...

Isn't it a worry though that SCC employees seem to be behaving like robots?

We follow the procedure, so we are OK...
... even if a bit of 'common sense' might suggest that the 'procedure' is flawed?

And this raises the question of who exactly is responsible for the coming up with the 'procedures' and ensuring that they are up to date and relevant?

Anyone with the slightest interest in what they're doing might have been expected to query this 'procedure'...
... unless we're expected to believe that a load of 'unqualified' people with no interest in what they're doing are running SCC by following 'procedures'?

I'm sure many of us would be happier to believe that there are some dedicated individuals employed by SCC who may well have spotted this problem, but their concerns were overruled by people above them because 'procedures' were being followed...

[RollingJ 2,035]

@MrBlokeI've run out of 'reputation' again - but very well said. 👍👍

[hackey lad 3,970]

4 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

Maybe so, but after years of Tory funding cuts the planning dept or whoever approves is probably very stretched.

There we go . Not our fault , move along nothing to see here 

[Bargepole23 337]

1 hour ago, hackey lad said:

There we go . Not our fault , move along nothing to see here 

No. Your fault for voting Tory.

[hackey lad 3,970]

Just now, Bargepole23 said:

No. Your fault for voting Tory.

Not many Tories on Sheffield Council 

[Bargepole23 337]

5 hours ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

Isn't it a worry though that SCC employees seem to be behaving like robots?

We follow the procedure, so we are OK...
... even if a bit of 'common sense' might suggest that the 'procedure' is flawed?

And this raises the question of who exactly is responsible for the coming up with the 'procedures' and ensuring that they are up to date and relevant?

Anyone with the slightest interest in what they're doing might have been expected to query this 'procedure'...
... unless we're expected to believe that a load of 'unqualified' people with no interest in what they're doing are running SCC by following 'procedures'?

I'm sure many of us would be happier to believe that there are some dedicated individuals employed by SCC who may well have spotted this problem, but their concerns were overruled by people above them because 'procedures' were being followed...

What you're doing there is applying hindsight.

 

What makes you think that by working to a procedure they are unqualified? Many highly regulated industries, oil and gas, pharma, nuclear etc employ very well qualified people who work to strict procedural controls.

[RollingJ 2,035]

3 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

What you're doing there is applying hindsight.

 

What makes you think that by working to a procedure they are unqualified? Many highly regulated industries, oil and gas, pharma, nuclear etc employ very well qualified people who work to strict procedural controls.

There is a very good reason why those industries (and others) work to strict procedures - they are safety critical to a  high degree - council planning doesn't come anywhere near.