Council tree felling...

[Guest makapaka]

I suggested that some people might not have read it, I expect that's true.

You then argued against me saying that they all wouldn't have read it, something I didn't say.

 

You can't have it both ways, of the people who care about the issue enough to respond, the majority are against it. Quite a lot don't care, but that isn't support.

 

I’ve never said it was support - I said it was apathy. They’re not bothered.

 

You equally can’t have it both ways - you can’t raise the issue that the envelope was not clear as to what it contained as a factor and then back track as to what extent it impacted the vote.

[Mr Bloke]

God - the old strawman thing again - it's not a strawman. I'm not arguing the point as to where they put the letter - it doesn't matter. The point you made was that the letter was presented in a fashion that you suggested people didn't read it. Whether they put it in a bin or the bath or down their trousers doesn't really matter. Your argument must be that they didn't read it otherwise the fact that the letter wasn't marked is irrelevant....

 

As I said earlier - it isn't conclusive - but;

 

144 households were asked.

116 households didn't reply.

23 replied and objected.

5 replied and didn't object.

 

Therefore

 

3% Replied and didn't object

16% Objected

81% Didn't respond.

 

Imagine a local election where 81% didn't turn out - everyone would rightly be talking about voter apathy - not a silent majority.

Hmmm...

 

... that's interesting... so where did you get all these numbers from?

 

Surely the council would not disclose such sensitive information to just anyone?

 

If you know so much detail about how people voted maybe you can also tell us how many properties are occupied on short-term leases?

[Guest makapaka]

Hmmm...

 

... that's interesting... so where did you get all these numbers from?

 

Surely the council would not disclose such sensitive information to just anyone?

 

If you know so much detail about how people voted maybe you can also tell us how many properties are occupied on short-term leases?

 

I got all the information from the link posted by c00kie further up the thread so the tinfoil hat can go back in the cupboard.

 

I don’t know how many properties are on short term lease either - but that would only reinforce the apathy argument rather than contest it anyway.

[Longcol]

From GP or Dentist would be addressed to someone at the address

 

And presumably the council had to use "The Occupier" due to the constraints of the Data Protection Act.

[Mr Bloke]

I got all the information from the link posted by c00kie further up the thread so the tinfoil hat can go back in the cupboard.

 

I don’t know how many properties are on short term lease either - but that would only reinforce the apathy argument rather than contest it anyway.

Hmmm...

 

... well not really.

 

I'd like to know what the for/against percentage breakdown was of the properties with long-term occupants.

 

For example, if there are only 23 properties that are long-term occupants, and 23 replied and objected, then obviously 100% of all those who have an interest in the area were against.

 

That would mean that 100% of those people who were living there long-term were certainly not apathetic.

 

Which again raises the point - why would anyone who is only living there for a few months care one way or the other? But just by their numbers it could be skewing the results and giving the impression that very few care. Maybe this should have been taken into account?

 

Failing that, you should really be saying that out of the 19% who replied, 5 times as many objected (16%) to those who didn't (3%).

[hackey lad]

And presumably the council had to use "The Occupier" due to the constraints of the Data Protection Act.

 

If a brown envelope marked "the Occupier" came to my address it would go straight in the bin . Had them before , I cant remember what for but it was just bumf . I think the point that Cyclone was making was that these Brown envelopes were delivered by council employees not the post office and with no address on them

[dave_the_m]

Note also that the "survey" was incredibly biased. It actually stated in the letter that SCC only cut trees down as a last resort, and that the tree programme was necessary to prevent "a catastrophic decline in tree numbers".

 

Just imagine if the Brexit referendum ballot paper had stated that leaving the EU would result in a catastrophic decline in the economy.

[Longcol]

I think the point that Cyclone was making was that these Brown envelopes were delivered by council employees not the post office and with no address on them

 

A point he failed to make despite a number of posts on the subject.

 

First time I've heard that there was no address - a number of posts on the STAG website stated they were addressed to "The Occupier".

[hackey lad]

A point he failed to make despite a number of posts on the subject.

 

First time I've heard that there was no address - a number of posts on the STAG website stated they were addressed to "The Occupier".

 

Yes "the Occupier" but no house address on them

[Guest makapaka]

Note also that the "survey" was incredibly biased. It actually stated in the letter that SCC only cut trees down as a last resort, and that the tree programme was necessary to prevent "a catastrophic decline in tree numbers".

 

Just imagine if the Brexit referendum ballot paper had stated that leaving the EU would result in a catastrophic decline in the economy.

 

So how come so few didn’t vote in favour?