Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Guest makapaka]

Are you just deliberately lying now?

The ITP does NOT in any way decide the tree's futures. So far Amey and the council have ignored pretty much every recommendation by the ITP, as you know, because we've told you that multiple times.

They replace the trees because they are contractually obliged to. They remove them in the first place because it saves them money to do so.

 

Can you think of some other reason that Amey are removing trees against the recommendations of the ITP?

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2017 at 21:56 ----------

 

 

Have you tried using your brain and thinking about it?

 

We have actually done some basic maths to prove it, but you could work it out for yourself if you try really hard.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2017 at 21:59 ----------

 

This thread has descended into farce. A small number of people who for some unfathomable reason want to defend Amey have had to abandon all pretence at logic and critical thinking to keep repeating the same (already clearly answered) questions.

 

Amey can't, the council can't and none of the posters defending their behaviour can advance an explanation for why the trees are being cut down, nor can they deny that it coincidentally reduces the ongoing cost to Amey.

 

What have i lied about?

 

What does the ITP do? Stag were offered a place and refused it.if the council and amey were ignoring ITP recommendations that would have been the ideal platform for stag to highlight that. Instead they refused.

 

A tree gets replaced - if that saves amey money it's more than likely saved the council money and thus made the scheme viable in the first place.

 

It's assumed it's defence of Amey - because it disagrees with the view of a contrived attempt to profiteer to the detriment of Sheffield.

 

I believe that on the whole the city benefits from the scheme.

 

Just because I disagree it does not make me a liar. Nor should i only take "answered questions" as gospel - its already been said there is a limited view of the contractual position. There is also no acknowledgement any of the increased benefits, only the reductions.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments, i agree with probably most of them - but the refusal to accept any other opinion undermines the argument generally.

[Robin-H]

What have i lied about?

 

What does the ITP do? Stag were offered a place and refused it.if the council and amey were ignoring ITP recommendations that would have been the ideal platform for stag to highlight that. Instead they refused.

 

A tree gets replaced - if that saves amey money it's more than likely saved the council money and thus made the scheme viable in the first place.

 

It's assumed it's defence of Amey - because it disagrees with the view of a contrived attempt to profiteer to the detriment of Sheffield.

 

I believe that on the whole the city benefits from the scheme.

 

Just because I disagree it does not make me a liar. Nor should i only take "answered questions" as gospel - its already been said there is a limited view of the contractual position. There is also no acknowledgement any of the increased benefits, only the reductions.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments, i agree with probably most of them - but the refusal to accept any other opinion undermines the argument generally.

 

I'm confused why a member of STAG would need to be on the ITP in order to highlight the fact that their recommendations are being ignored? That is plain to see from published recommendations from the ITP and the council's response to those recommendations.

 

Members of STAG do regularly meet with Julie Dore in order to discuss the pressing issues - I really fail to see why you think being a member of a panel which they don't agree with existing at all is better than being able to talk directly to the council leader. Can you explain why you think that?

[Guest makapaka]

I'm confused why a member of STAG would need to be on the ITP in order to highlight the fact that their recommendations are being ignored? That is plain to see from published recommendations from the ITP and the council's response to those recommendations.

 

Members of STAG do regularly meet with Julie Dore in order to discuss the pressing issues - I really fail to see why you think being a member of a panel which they don't agree with existing at all is better than being able to talk directly to the council leader. Can you explain why you think that?

 

Absolutely- assuming someone with the knowledge you have is on the panel. They highlight their views and record them. The panel ignores their views.

 

The person comes out and explains that despite being on the ITP their opinions were completely ignored.

 

That would be the ideal platform to hold people to account and highlight the refusal to acknowledge any failings.

 

Talking to the council leader and explaining this would be an added bonus which might also highlight any inadequacies to her directly.

[taxman]

 

What does the ITP do? Stag were offered a place and refused it.if the council and amey were ignoring ITP recommendations that would have been the ideal platform for stag to highlight that. Instead they refused.

 

 

 

You answer your own point.....SCC and Amey have consistently ignored ITP recommendations so there is absolutely no point in Stag being a part of a total sham. All it would do is to provide SCC with a chance to say that Stag were part of the consultation process, despite said consultation being meaningless.

[Guest makapaka]

You answer your own point.....SCC and Amey have consistently ignored ITP recommendations so there is absolutely no point in Stag being a part of a total sham. All it would do is to provide SCC with a chance to say that Stag were part of the consultation process, despite said consultation being meaningless.

 

That's a cop out - it's the ideal platform to voice the argument in a panel that is supposed to be independent.

 

As I've said before it's like saying your vote doesn't count cos your party won't win.

 

They should be on the panel which regardless of the opinion is a recognised platform. Far more than this one.

[Robin-H]

Absolutely- assuming someone with the knowledge you have is on the panel. They highlight their views and record them. The panel ignores their views.

 

The person comes out and explains that despite being on the ITP their opinions were completely ignored.

 

That would be the ideal platform to hold people to account and highlight the refusal to acknowledge any failings.

 

Talking to the council leader and explaining this would be an added bonus which might also highlight any inadequacies to her directly.

 

The panel is made up of experts.

 

Andy Buck, the Chair, is a chief executive of Sheffield Citizens Advice. Jacqui Stubbs is a Chair for partners of inclusion (and so has knowledge around 'discriminatory' trees). Philip Duckett has many years experience working in Heath and Safety, as does David Graham. Andy Bagshaw is an Arboricultural Consultant with 14 years experience.

 

The fact that the advice of these people are being ignored would not be significantly more notable if the panel included a member of STAG, who don't necessarily have any particular expertise. They are already ignoring the recommendations of people with significant experience in these areas.

 

It would also call into question the Independence of the Independent Tree Panel if one of the members had a particular agenda.

[Guest makapaka]

The panel is made up of experts.

 

Andy Buck, the Chair, is a chief executive of Sheffield Citizens Advice. Jacqui Stubbs is a Chair for partners of inclusion (and so has knowledge around 'discriminatory' trees). Philip Duckett has many years experience working in Heath and Safety, as does David Graham. Andy Bagshaw is an Arboricultural Consultant with 14 years experience.

 

The fact that the advice of these people are being ignored would not be significantly more notable if the panel included a member of STAG, who don't necessarily have any particular expertise. They are already ignoring the recommendations of people with significant experience in these areas.

 

It would also call into question the Independence of the Independent Tree Panel if one of the members had a particular agenda.

 

What agenda?

[Robin-H]

What agenda?

 

The agenda of STAG is to minimise the felling of healthy mature roadside street trees across Sheffield.

[Guest makapaka]

The agenda of STAG is to minimise the felling of healthy mature roadside street trees across Sheffield.

 

We'll surely that's the aim of the panel also. Unless the independent panel consists of people wanting to maximise it.

 

How could a further voice be a bad thing?

[onewheeldave]

You answer your own point.....SCC and Amey have consistently ignored ITP recommendations so there is absolutely no point in Stag being a part of a total sham. All it would do is to provide SCC with a chance to say that Stag were part of the consultation process, despite said consultation being meaningless.

 

That's a cop out - it's the ideal platform to voice the argument in a panel that is supposed to be independent.

 

As I've said before it's like saying your vote doesn't count cos your party won't win.

 

They should be on the panel which regardless of the opinion is a recognised platform. Far more than this one.

It's not a cop out- it's a very good answer that blows your 'argument' out of the water.

 

Either you're trolling or your brains not working.

 

Your 'voting' nonsense is yet another strawman distraction.