hackey lad Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 I think he is aware and not misinformed - it’s a bit patronising to suggest otherwise. Sounds like the only thing he is aware about, is the councils/ameys side of things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Good article in the Guardian about the tree fellings- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/25/for-the-chop-the-battle-to-save-sheffields-trees?CMP=share_btn_fb "For the chop: the battle to save Sheffield’s trees" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Good article in the Guardian about the tree fellings- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/25/for-the-chop-the-battle-to-save-sheffields-trees?CMP=share_btn_fb "For the chop: the battle to save Sheffield’s trees" Drawing comparisons with the Miner's strike - give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Drawing comparisons with the Miner's strike - give me a break. It doesn't compare it to the miner's strike. It's just pointing out the hypocrisy of a Labour council using anti-union legislation, which it bitterly opposed at the time it was introduced, against tree protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 It doesn't compare it to the miner's strike. It's just pointing out the hypocrisy of a Labour council using anti-union legislation, which it bitterly opposed at the time it was introduced, against tree protesters. Yes it does; “Only about 30 years on from Orgreave, our local councillors seem to not see the bitter twist in all this.” There is no need to mention orgreave otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Yes it does; “Only about 30 years on from Orgreave, our local councillors seem to not see the bitter twist in all this.” There is no need to mention orgreave otherwise. How is that "Drawing comparisons with the Miner's strike"? It's merely putting the introduction of the legislation, which was intended for curbing trade union actions, into context and highlighting how the council are using the law beyond its intended purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 How is that "Drawing comparisons with the Miner's strike"? It's merely putting the introduction of the legislation, which was intended for curbing trade union actions, into context and highlighting how the council are using the law beyond its intended purpose. How does it highlight that the council are using the law beyoind its intended purpose? By comparing it to Orgreave? It doesn't have to mention Orgreave to provide context - only to draw a veiled comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paula4sheff Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 How is that "Drawing comparisons with the Miner's strike"? It's merely putting the introduction of the legislation, which was intended for curbing trade union actions, into context and highlighting how the council are using the law beyond its intended purpose. I wouldn't bother. Any mention of the council/Amey in a negative way and that particular user goes into overdrive defensive. Common opinion is that they work for the council. Always ends up with twisting of words and truth, and it's honestly not worth engaging with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 I wouldn't bother. Any mention of the council/Amey in a negative way and that particular user goes into overdrive defensive. Common opinion is that they work for the council. Always ends up with twisting of words and truth, and it's honestly not worth engaging with! "Common opinion is that they work for the council":hihi:............common opinion amongst whom? You? I don't work for the council or anything like it. Never have in the past. Never will in the future. Do you have an opinion on the Guardian article? Or just me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 I wouldn't bother. Any mention of the council/Amey in a negative way and that particular user goes into overdrive defensive. Common opinion is that they work for the council. Always ends up with twisting of words and truth, and it's honestly not worth engaging with! I think it's more a case that they are a member of the local Labour Party. 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