Council tree felling...

[Guest makapaka]

Call me cynical but.... you are still here defending the council/ amey

 

Well you and others keep saying that. But what am I defending?

 

It’s common these days to assume everything is binary - one side or the other.

 

I’ve just listed a load of suggestions by people on here - you’ve not given any supporting arguments - you’ve just said I’m defending Scc/amey.

 

Now why would I do that if any of those things were proven to be true?

 

Why would I defend them assaulting people?

Why would I defend a paper protecting advertisement revenues to push amey?

Why would I agree with syp “raiding pensioners homes”?

 

If any of those things were proven I’d be the first to condemn it - don’t tell me I’m defending something just because people want to fire out allegations without substance.

 

---------- Post added 31-01-2018 at 23:29 ----------

 

It's round and round in circles - words twisted, people misquoted, arguments created when there aren't any- easily the most boring person on the forum.

 

Which is quote impressive really!

 

I gave up engaging a while back. You don't have discussions, you just end up defending something you never even said in the first place!

 

Relentless defence of Amey and the Council across many threads, and against all allegations of any wrongdoing whatsoever is rather peculiar though, I agree.

 

Cue "I'm not defending anyone, just going on facts, you lot just don't like hearing views that are different to yours, you can't handle the truth" etc etc.

 

And the whole cycle begins again. Just not worth responding to - you can have discussions and debates with other posters. Not this one.

 

You can have discussions and debates with people who agree with you you mean?

 

Feel free to point out the misquotes and twisted words. Feel free to point out any facts I’ve stated that are wrong - if I am I will accept it.

 

I presume by boring you mean not jumping on the speculation train and dealing with known facts.

 

Don’t patronise me by suggesting I’m boring for not agreeing with you.

Edited January 31, 2018 by makapaka

[EmmaJones76]

 

October, November, December, January. Looks like 4.

 

Erm, no?

 

So are you telling me the gap between (as an example) the 30th October and 2nd January is 4 months?

[Cyclone]

It spans 4 months, but you're talking about the number of days.

 

Are you telling me that the gap between 1st Oct and 31st Jan isn't 4 months?

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2018 at 08:35 ----------

 

No they haven’t.

 

Which is why I don’t go around saying they have - it’s for the police to investigate.

 

However you keep saying amey are assaulting people - when no one has been charged for that.

Assaults have been reported to the police and are being investigated.

Why is it acceptable for you to say something that isn’t true - but you seem offended that others are awaiting the outcome of a criminal investigation which no one knows if true or not?

Take a look back over this thread...

 

If it’s not true the police won’t charge anyone -the fact that you believe they won’t find any evidence doesn’t give you the right to say amey are assaulting people when they haven’t been charged of any such crime.

If the police can't find sufficient evidence they won't charge anyone.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen (although the same is true of the poison tea obviously).

Police charges don't prove or disprove the truth of something.

[EmmaJones76]

It spans 4 months, but you're talking about the number of days.

 

Are you telling me that the gap between 1st Oct and 31st Jan isn't 4 months?

.

 

Why is that relevant when this issue broke (as far as I can see) on the 26th January? The most the gap could have possibly been was 3 months 3.5 weeks, may even been as low as 2 months 3.5 weeks depending when in October it was....

 

In any case, it was never "4 months"

[Cyclone]

Maka - twisting words for example

I say "Amey made the national news for assaulting people". This is a fact, they were in the national news for allegations of assault.

You then start up on "have the police charged anyone". As if that will somehow alter the fact that they were in the national news for allegations of assault. It won't. That happened. It's a fact.

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2018 at 08:41 ----------

 

You've spent quite a few posts trying to redefine legally what assault is as well. Somehow you think grabbing people is entirely legal and not the very definition of assault!

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2018 at 08:43 ----------

 

Post #451 you change "perhaps" to "I assume" in order to argue that assumptions are unfair. Twisting the meaning by changing the words.

[ENG601PM]

Right now, the Amey / SCC partnership are looking at this thread thinking "great, they are squabbling among themselves about the dictionary, we're winning this"

 

Trees please.

[Eccy Beach]

Right now, the Amey / SCC partnership are looking at this thread thinking "great, they are squabbling among themselves about the dictionary, we're winning this"

 

Trees please.

 

You're right debate has descended into an English lesson but underneath it there are clearly divergent views on the tree felling.

 

Personally I don't want trees to be felled unnecessarily but when I see some of the trees on Sheldon Road, which make pushing a buggy up there akin to moon landing, with bat boxes and ribbons on I can't disagree with them being removed and replaced.

 

We're all entitled to an opinion. Sorry if you feel that benefits Amey/SCC

[alchresearch]

Personally I don't want trees to be felled unnecessarily but when I see some of the trees on Sheldon Road, which make pushing a buggy up there akin to moon landing

 

Thank God Amey went upto the moon in 1968 to clear the trees for the Apollo 11 landing

[Guest makapaka]

Maka - twisting words for example

I say "Amey made the national news for assaulting people". This is a fact, they were in the national news for allegations of assault.

You then start up on "have the police charged anyone". As if that will somehow alter the fact that they were in the national news for allegations of assault. It won't. That happened. It's a fact.

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2018 at 08:41 ----------

 

You've spent quite a few posts trying to redefine legally what assault is as well. Somehow you think grabbing people is entirely legal and not the very definition of assault!

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2018 at 08:43 ----------

 

Post #451 you change "perhaps" to "I assume" in order to argue that assumptions are unfair. Twisting the meaning by changing the words.

 

All you (and others) are doing is trying to deflect from the key points - accusing me of twisting words by twisting mine.

 

To clarify;

 

1. Asking if the police has charged someone is not denying that a paper reported allegations in the paper. I asked that question as when you say "Amey were in the national news for assaulting people" you decided to omit the word "allegation". Therefore when read your post suggests they had assaulted people - which as yet has been unproven.

 

2. I have never tried to redefine what is assault and what isn't - I have only ever said its up to the police to decide.

 

3. As for " [i changed] "perhaps" to "I assume" in order to argue that assumptions are unfair. Twisting the meaning by changing the words".....

 

You said "Perhaps they all just had a stomach bug, but their manager suggested that they'd been poisoned. They're probably not the smartest bunch.

 

To which I replied it's wrong to make assumptions on people's intelligence when you don't know them. You didn't say "perhaps they're not the smartest bunch" you said "perhaps they all just had a stomach bug".

 

Instead of me having to correct your accusations of bias - why don't you respond to the points I put forward last night - and give supporting arguments on the allegations people continue to put forward on here?

[Cyclone]

2) It really isn't. There's a legal definition and a court can decide if it has been breached. The police are an investigatory service.

 

It seems clear to me that you keep twisting words and taking things out of context in order to defend Amey/SCC. Perhaps you think that this is to provide a balanced viewpoint, but it doesn't come over like that.