Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Robin-H]

Except that that is not how things generally work: unless there is a reason to think that something has changed, it is assumed to remain the same.

 

Yes, it does appear to say that, but I am not clear who it is that the are supposed to make these recommendations to, and whether those recommendations have to be heeded.

 

Have you found any information about communities?

Except insofar as where it is the area governed by a community council, I have found not a lot.

 

But they did change. They changed in 1894.

 

The recommendations are meant to be made to the principal council, which in the case of Sheffield I assume would be Sheffield City Council. The explanatory notes explains that 'principal authority' is defined as 'either a district or county council'. Sheffield City Council is a metropolitan district.

 

I believe that community council is just another form of parish council.

[Hairyloon]

But they did change. They changed in 1894.

I am not convinced that they did. They may have set up parish councils and transferred many of the powers of the church to those councils, but the meaning of the word "parish" remained the same: it is simply an area defined by a parish boundary.

 

What I am missing here though is why it is that you think the council would be so resistant to the proposal of democracy: any resistance that they were to give on this question should be clearly seen to be an attempt to obstruct the will of the people.

Granted if you set out at the onset that the intent was to screw them over over this Amey fiasco, then they would look for ways out of it, but I'd suggest to avoid that at this juncture.

[Robin-H]

I am not convinced that they did. They may have set up parish councils and transferred many of the powers of the church to those councils, but the meaning of the word "parish" remained the same: it is simply an area defined by a parish boundary.

 

What I am missing here though is why it is that you think the council would be so resistant to the proposal of democracy: any resistance that they were to give on this question should be clearly seen to be an attempt to obstruct the will of the people.

Granted if you set out at the onset that the intent was to screw them over over this Amey fiasco, then they would look for ways out of it, but I'd suggest to avoid that at this juncture.

 

Then I think that is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not believe that the rules as set out in either the '72, '97 or '07 acts would apply to ecclesiastical parishes as I think that the inference that the acts apply to governance and therefore civil parishes is very clear.

 

What would convince you that the acts do not apply to ecclesiastical parishes?

 

I have never stated that the council would be resistant to the proposal of democracy. I do not believe that the mechanisms that you suggest could produce a poll would actually do so.

[Flexo]

It will be interesting to see how SCC react to this. If they find that Amey are physically prevented from cutting down trees, which I expect they will, I think the only way forward will be via the courts, with injunctions against individually named protestors.

 

6,300 and counting....

[Cyclone]

You could just tell them that you want to hold a parish or community meeting in accordance with the Local Government Act, Schedule 12 section III and V, and would like their guidance on what boundaries you should use.

It rather depends on whether you actually want a proper answer: you give the impression you are doing it to prove me wrong.

 

Then you should be aware that it is a standing principle in British law that words in legislation hold their common English meaning unless specifically stated otherwise. Unless there is an interpretation section of the 1972 act that I have missed, then that means that "parish" in that act can be applied to anything that is called a parish in common English.

 

Weren't you going to tell us about your expertise with constitutional law?

[Hairyloon]

Then I think that is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not believe that the rules as set out in either the '72, '97 or '07 acts would apply to ecclesiastical parishes as I think that the inference that the acts apply to governance and therefore civil parishes is very clear.

I simply don't see why they couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't apply, unless you seek to obstruct a reasonable democratic process.

 

What is the intention of the law if not to provide a mechanism by which the people of an area can express a collective democratic opinion on an issue which affects them?

If that is the case, then what does it matter how you define that group?

 

Whatever way you look at it a parish boundary is just a line drawn arbitrarily on a map and one line is as good as another.

 

What would convince you that the acts do not apply to ecclesiastical parishes?

A judicial review ruling in favour of a council that refused an order for a referendum from a properly constituted parish meeting of that parish.

Or a reference to a statute that explicitly says that it doesn't apply.

 

I have never stated that the council would be resistant to the proposal of democracy. I do not believe that the mechanisms that you suggest could produce a poll would actually do so.

If I have read you right, then you do believe they could, but only after first passing the rigmarole of a local governance review (or whatever it was called).

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2017 at 16:37 ----------

 

Weren't you going to tell us about your expertise with constitutional law?

Yes I was. Sorry, I got called away before I'd finished. I thought we'd moved on, but since you ask:

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2017 at 16:38 ----------

 

What legal training specific to local parish legislation do you have? We will assume that your interpretation is just as likely to have been prone to errors, unless you can show us why we shouldn't.

 

We can probably assume that I have read the legislation more times than anyone else: case in point, the number of people that jump to the assumption that it refers to parish councils. Some will stick to that assumption come hell or high water.

 

I've probably spent more time working on legal cases than many here. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I think I understand how it works. If you think I have got it wrong then do please say so.

 

I believe the only point we currently have in dispute is as to whether the word "parish" in the Local Government Act 1972 means parish, or does it specifically mean civil parish.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Hairyloon

[Robin-H]

I simply don't see why they couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't apply, unless you seek to obstruct a reasonable democratic process.

 

What is the intention of the law if not to provide a mechanism by which the people of an area can express a collective democratic opinion on an issue which affects them?

If that is the case, then what does it matter how you define that group?

 

Whatever way you look at it a parish boundary is just a line drawn arbitrarily on a map and one line is as good as another.

 

 

A judicial review ruling in favour of a council that refused an order for a referendum from a properly constituted parish meeting of that parish.

Or a reference to a statute that explicitly says that it doesn't apply.

 

 

If I have read you right, then you do believe they could, but only after first passing the rigmarole of a local governance review (or whatever it was called).

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2017 at 16:37 ----------

 

Yes I was. Sorry, I got called away before I'd finished. I thought we'd moved on, but since you ask:

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2017 at 16:38 ----------

 

 

We can probably assume that I have read the legislation more times than anyone else: case in point, the number of people that jump to the assumption that it refers to parish councils. Some will stick to that assumption come hell or high water.

 

I've probably spent more time working on legal cases than many here. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I think I understand how it works. If you think I have got it wrong then do please say so.

 

I believe the only point we currently have in dispute is as to whether the word "parish" in the Local Government Act 1972 means parish, or does it specifically mean civil parish.

 

OK then. By your logic every area in England will be part of some old ecclesiastical parish, even if only discoverable by looking at old maps and even if the surrounding area has changed dramatically since the boundaries were set out, yes? That may well be true.

 

You are also suggesting however that being part of an ecclesiastical parish gives you the same rights as being part of a civil parish, as stipulated in the '72 Act (namely the right to call a poll, which is what this discussion was originally about). Indeed you are still maintaining that the '72 is applicable to ecclesiastical parishes and well as civil parishes, despite the obvious flaws in that assertion (nearly that ecclesiastical parishes do not form a part of the level of governance of England, do not get confused because they happen to share part of the same name, it does not mean they are they same thing).

 

Why then do the the rules governing the creation of new parishes in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 exist at all?

 

You're saying that everywhere will be in an ecclesiastical parish and that grants you the same rights as a civil parish without having the go through the long rigmarole set out in the '07 act. Why would anybody need to ask for a community governance review to be conducted if all they needed to do was say 'Hey, I live in an old ecclesiastical parish, that means I can call a parish poll despite not being a civil parish'.

 

I think you have it wrong. You are sticking to the assumption that the '72 Act applies to ecclesiastical parishes 'come hell or high water' despite the flaws in that reasoning I have outlined.

[Hairyloon]

You are also suggesting however that being part of an ecclesiastical parish gives you the same rights as being part of a civil parish, as stipulated in the '72 Act (namely the right to call a poll, which is what this discussion was originally about).

 

Curiously enough I was looking at the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (it was on a wall where I was waiting).

In article 7 it says:

All are equal before the law...

By your construction, person A has the right to a democratic voice while person B has no such right, simply because of where he lives.

While the convention does allow some exemptions where they are proportionate and to achieve a legitimate aim, what is the legitimate aim in denying person B the right to a democratic voice?

 

Indeed you are still maintaining that the '72 is applicable to ecclesiastical parishes and well as civil parishes, despite the obvious flaws in that assertion

Clearly the flaws are not obvious.

(nearly that ecclesiastical parishes do not form a part of the level of governance of England, do not get confused because they happen to share part of the same name, it does not mean they are they same thing).

This is not a question of governance it is simply the expression of a democratic opinion: it does not matter which arbitrary line was drawn on the map, or why; it doesn't even matter very much where, unless someone decides to make a fuss about it.

Why then do the the rules governing the creation of new parishes in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 exist at all?

That is a good question, but I doubt very much that the answer has anything to do with the '72 act. I rather think they hope people have forgotten about it: can you imagine the trouble people could cause if they were allowed a democratic vote on a question of their own choosing?!

You're saying that everywhere will be in an ecclesiastical parish and that grants you the same rights as a civil parish.

 

Yes.

You are saying that people should not be considered equal before the law, but instead should be discriminated against regarding the allocation of their rights based simply upon where they live.

 

You are sticking to the assumption that the '72 Act applies to ecclesiastical parishes 'come hell or high water' despite the flaws in that reasoning I have outlined.

I am open to persuasion, but your argument has not been persuasive. Your flaws are flawed; they rely on a governance that is not relevant.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Hairyloon

[Guest makapaka]

6,300 and counting....

 

How many replanted?

[Robin-H]

Curiously enough I was looking at the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (it was on a wall where I was waiting).

In article 7 it says:

 

By your construction, person A has the right to a democratic voice while person B has no such right, simply because of where he lives.

While the convention does allow some exemptions where they are proportionate and to achieve a legitimate aim, what is the legitimate aim in denying person B the right to a democratic voice?

 

 

Clearly the flaws are not obvious.

 

This is not a question of governance it is simply the expression of a democratic opinion: it does not matter which arbitrary line was drawn on the map, or why; it doesn't even matter very much where, unless someone decides to make a fuss about it.

 

That is a good question, but I doubt very much that the answer has anything to do with the '72 act. I rather think they hope people have forgotten about it: can you imagine the trouble people could cause if they were allowed a democratic vote on a question of their own choosing?!

 

 

Yes.

You are saying that people should not be considered equal before the law, but instead should be discriminated against regarding the allocation of their rights based simply upon where they live.

 

I am open to persuasion, but your argument has not been persuasive. Your flaws are flawed; they rely on a governance that is not relevant.

 

I'm not suggesting that at all. There are provisions in place to allow people to set up a new parish. It is not instant, but they are certainly not being denied anything or being discriminated against in the same way that you cannot vote in elections unless you are on the electoral role. This is not instant either.

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2017 at 19:21 ----------

 

How many replanted?

 

Flexo is referring to Facebook STAG membership, not trees felled.

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2017 at 19:29 ----------

 

That is a good question, but I doubt very much that the answer has anything to do with the '72 act. I rather think they hope people have forgotten about it: can you imagine the trouble people could cause if they were allowed a democratic vote on a question of their own choosing?!

 

 

Earlier you seemed to be questioning me because you thought I was assuming the council would want to block democratic action, with you stating..

 

"why it is that you think the council would be so resistant to the proposal of democracy".

 

Now you seem to be stating that the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 was written because the government hoped that people will have forgotten the rights that you claim that they have, and so what.. wrote the 2007 Act to make it look more complicated than it actually is?

 

Why it is that you think the council would be so resistant to the proposal of democracy?