Council tree felling...

[rogets]

The trees were a danger if you accidently walked into one

[Baron99]

While SCC are deservedly getting it in the neck, weren't the experts deciding on which trees to be felled from Amey?  I seem to remember from years ago that their senior managers were just as outspoken about protesters as the councillors they appeared to be in cahoots with to push the felling through. 

 

Amey appear to have got off scot-free in all this, without any criticism. 

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Baron99

[dave_the_m]

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

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?

No, the inquiry was informal, rather than a creature of statute, and it didn't prove anything like that, and certainly not beyond reasonable doubt. It had lots to say about the council collectively giving the court wrong impressions, but that's a huge gulf from a specific named individual stating under oath something which they knew to be factually incorrect and which had a material effect on a court case.

 

A lot of what SCC did was in withholding information, in particular not releasing the contract. So "our side" didn't know about the 17,500 tree felling  contractual obligation, so our barristers weren't even in a position to ask the SCC witnesses about it. So they didn't need to lie on the stand about that.

[hackey lad]

42 minutes ago, dave_the_m said:

No, the inquiry was informal, rather than a creature of statute, and it didn't prove anything like that, and certainly not beyond reasonable doubt. It had lots to say about the council collectively giving the court wrong impressions, but that's a huge gulf from a specific named individual stating under oath something which they knew to be factually incorrect and which had a material effect on a court case.

 

A lot of what SCC did was in withholding information, in particular not releasing the contract. So "our side" didn't know about the 17,500 tree felling  contractual obligation, so our barristers weren't even in a position to ask the SCC witnesses about it. So they didn't need to lie on the stand about that.

You seem to know a lot about this . So , the council apologised , is that the end of the matter?

[Delbow]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

Who is Dr. Simon Crump?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/21/simon-crump-author-sheffield-tree-felling-protest-council

[Longcol]

2 hours ago, RollingJ said:

 The threats most likely came from council/Amey supporters.

Or more likely those lovers of environmentalists, university lecturers etc - a section of Daily Mail readers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/21/simon-crump-author-sheffield-tree-felling-protest-council

 

"On another occasion, the Daily Mail posted a video of him lying on a branch as it was being fed into a chipping machine, which he claimed resulted in 138 death threats."

[RollingJ]

6 hours ago, Longcol said:

Or more likely those lovers of environmentalists, university lecturers etc - a section of Daily Mail readers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/21/simon-crump-author-sheffield-tree-felling-protest-council

 

"On another occasion, the Daily Mail posted a video of him lying on a branch as it was being fed into a chipping machine, which he claimed resulted in 138 death threats."

I know it's early, but that doesn't make sense to me?

[HeHasRisen]

4 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

I know it's early, but that doesn't make sense to me?

The Daily Mail subset of readers would hate people like him. However I suspect he is laying it on a bit thick, what likely happened is 138 people said not very nice things in the comments under that Daily Mail article, stuff like "I hope he falls into the chipping machine",  and he is counting that as a "death threat". 

 

I highly doubt 138 people have sent him poison pen letters. 

Edited June 22, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[RollingJ]

Just now, HeHasRisen said:

The Daily Mail subset of readers would hate people like him. However I suspect he is laying it on a bit thick, what likely happened is 138 people said not very nice things in the comments under that Daily Mail article, stuff like "I hope he falls into the chipping machine",  and he is counting that as a "death threat". 

 

I highly doubt 138 people have sent him poison pen letters. 

Ah, Gotcha. As I don't read that comic, I was a little confused.

[dave_the_m]

13 hours ago, hackey lad said:

You seem to know a lot about this . So , the council apologised , is that the end of the matter?

Well, it doesn't look likely that anyone will get prosecuted for their actions, and just about all councillors and senior offices involved have since retired, resigned or moved on, so none of them can be fired or voted out.