Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[WalkleyIan]

Another new tree vandalised on Commonside.

 

The one outside the Dram Shop was actually cut down with a saw. It was replaced before Xmas. Now the one outside the Rajpiut has been deliberately broken in half. Whatever the wrongs or rights about the whole tree thing its just pure vandalism to destroy the new ones. Thankfully the ones in Walkley have been in for a few years now so are starting to look established.

 

There has also been tagging epidemic over the last week including the cash points so may be related

[WarPig]

Are you serious?

 

The lack of a picket line, the lack of a union, the lack of any of the specifics of that law actually applying to the situation we are talking about... Just think about it for a minute and get back to us.

 

What makes you think there has to be a picket line?

 

They would most likely have been arrested on suspicion of committing the offence. You can't expect the police to wait until there is proof that an offence has been committed, as that can only be decided once in court. I would hazard a guess the the women would have been given ample opportunity to move away from the trees, and received warning of a possible arrest, but chose not to move knowing full well what the outcome would be.

 

I suppose we could also add on that the CPS have immediately dropped it, not proof that it didn't apply, but they clearly don't think they could get a conviction.

 

I'm sure they would have dropped it as 'not being in the public interest', which would be the right decision. Lots of cases are dropped because of this, but that doesn't mean all of those arrests are unlawful. Rather like being arrested for breach of the peace, you'd be unlikely to ever reach the point of being prosecuted. Infact, you'd probably not even get as far as the police cells before the arresting officer de-arrested you once the breach was over. Its just a preventative measure, just like the arrests on Rustling Road.

Edited February 6, 2017 by WarPig

[Cyclone]

You can't suspect someone of offences involving a picket line when there is no place of work or a picket line.

 

Perhaps rather than asking me to prove a negative, you can explain how the legislation did actually make sense and apply to the situation?

 

And they weren't de-arrested were they, they were charged and the CPS dropped it like a dirty nappy. Which I said already wasn't proof, so why you repeated that I don't know, but it adds some weight to the obvious interpretation that comes from reading the summary of that legislation that it simply didn't apply and was inappropriately used.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Cyclone

[WarPig]

Wouldn't the area around the trees be their place of work at that time? Giving rise to suspicion?

 

I never said that they were de-arrested. The CPS may have dropped it as not in the public interest to prosecute. And I've never asked you to prove any negative. As for how the legislation was applied, how would i know, I wasn't there, and I know nothing about picket lines or the legislation surrounding them. Im just offering suggestions as to why they might have been arrested without a tunnelled vision approach.

 

At least the objective was reached, the trees were lawfully felled without the council having to return another day, costing more and more money. Just because the felling of the trees might be immoral, doesn't mean its illegal. Personally im firmly against the idea of felling these trees, I think its a travesty, but that doesn't stop me from having a reasoned approach to the matter rather than just looking to blame the police.

Edited February 5, 2017 by WarPig

[Eater Sundae]

Are you serious?

 

The lack of a picket line, the lack of a union, the lack of any of the specifics of that law actually applying to the situation we are talking about... Just think about it for a minute and get back to us.

 

I suppose we could also add on that the CPS have immediately dropped it, not proof that it didn't apply, but they clearly don't think they could get a conviction.

 

It depends how the law is worded. If it specifically refers to, for example, "union members", then it only applies to union members. However, if it doesn't, then it applies to everyone, including 70 year old women.

[Cyclone]

If it specifically refers to a picket line, which it does, then how would that apply?

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2017 at 07:23 ----------

 

. As for how the legislation was applied, how would i know, I wasn't there, and I know nothing about picket lines or the legislation surrounding them. Im just offering suggestions as to why they might have been arrested without a tunnelled vision approach.

You're offering an opinion based on "I know nothing". From what I can see.

 

At least the objective was reached, the trees were lawfully felled without the council having to return another day, costing more and more money. Just because the felling of the trees might be immoral, doesn't mean its illegal. Personally im firmly against the idea of felling these trees, I think its a travesty, but that doesn't stop me from having a reasoned approach to the matter rather than just looking to blame the police.

 

Protest is entirely legal as well you know... So why are you happy about the trees being removed legally, but don't care about the legal right to protest being interfered with?

[WarPig]

You're offering an opinion based on "I know nothing". From what I can see.

 

Protest is entirely legal as well you know... So why are you happy about the trees being removed legally, but don't care about the legal right to protest being interfered with?

 

Of course I'm basing it all on opinion, aren't we both? Or do you have actual facts of this particular case? I would guess you are also basing your opinion on "I know nothing".

 

Re read my post about my thoughts on the trees. I don't agree with them being felled, but the felling was legal so im content with that. That just leaves the moral issue.

 

As for protesters, I'm happy for them to protest as much as much as they like as long as its peaceful and legal. But i think the two women stepped the wrong side of the law and were arrested, presumably despite being given numerous warnings? I expect they were hindering the tree fellers performing their lawful job?

 

As far as I can see the offence they were arrested for was correct. But you think it wasn't. And that's that.

 

Sec 241 Trade Unions 1992 Act relates to someone intimidating someone else from performing their legal act. So I would say this seems an appropriate offence to arrest for and makes no mention of picket lines.

Edited February 6, 2017 by WarPig

[Squiggs]

7 Arrested on Chippinghouse Road this morning including Green Party councillor Alison Teal

[Beligerence]

7 Arrested on Chippinghouse Road this morning including Green Party councillor Alison Teal

 

Were they obstructing work? If so, good. Why should people be obstructed whilst trying to carry out their job?

[dangerousedd]

arrested under the trade union act or something if I heard calendar right

 

 

its in the star:-

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-councillor-arrested-at-tree-felling-protest-1-8373720

Edited February 6, 2017 by dangerousedd