hackey lad Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, RollingJ said: Because politicians are as slippery as eels. They'll come up with an endless list of excuses. If they have lied in court ,surely the court could charge them with contempt or something . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruby Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 (edited) On 15/05/2023 at 22:58, Longcol said: Yes - woodland trees planted in narrow pavements and roadside verges belong to an era before mass car ownership. Pollarded trees are a good solution. If you love cars you should love trees as well because the help mitigate the pollution and greenhouse gases caused by them. Remember last years heatwave? Didn’t we need any scrap of shade we could get? Who wanted live on a bare, treeless road of tarmac and concrete with no respite from the sun then? Edited June 20, 2023 by redruby 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, hackey lad said: If they have lied in court ,surely the court could charge them with contempt or something . Hadn't thought of that - it is a distinct possibility. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron99 Posted June 20, 2023 Author Share Posted June 20, 2023 BBC's 10 o'clock news has just started & report about SCC's apology is one of the main stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Baron99 said: BBC's 10 o'clock news has just started & report about SCC's apology is one of the main stories. Yes, just seen it. But what was / is lacking is the answer as to WHY the Council decided to fell half the city's healthy, harmless trees? Who thought it was a good idea? What reparation is in order? Whose head is going to roll? And is an apology enough? Edited June 20, 2023 by Anna B 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, Anna B said: Yes, just seen it. But what was / is lacking is the answer as to WHY the Council decided to fell half the city's healthy, harmless trees? Who thought it was a good idea? What reparation is in order? Whose head is going to roll? And is an apology enough? Here’s one we all know the answer too . Who’s going to pay for it all ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 6 minutes ago, Anna B said: Yes, just seen it. But what was / is lacking is the answer as to WHY the Council decided to fell half the city's healthy, harmless trees? Who thought it was a good idea? What reparation is in order? Whose head is going to roll? And is an apology enough? They didn't - only some trees in roadside verges or footpaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_the_m Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 12 hours ago, hackey lad said: If they have lied in court ,surely the court could charge them with contempt or something . The trouble is that the state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they deliberately lied in order to pervert the course of justice. The defences to lying on the stand will be things along the lines of mishearing or misunderstanding the question, or misspeaking in the answer and so on. You're unlikely to get a conviction unless you have positive proof of intent, e.g. the police find a text you sent to a colleague saying "I intend to lie abut X when testifying tomorrow". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 People will still vote Labour in Sheffield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 3 hours ago, dave_the_m said: The trouble is that the state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they deliberately lied in order to pervert the course of justice. The defences to lying on the stand will be things along the lines of mishearing or misunderstanding the question, or misspeaking in the answer and so on. You're unlikely to get a conviction unless you have positive proof of intent, e.g. the police find a text you sent to a colleague saying "I intend to lie abut X when testifying tomorrow". According to the News report on TV, the enquiry has proved all this sort of thing without doubt, hence Sheffield Councils grovelling apology. But is that really enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now