Planner1 Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 18 minutes ago, mike1961 said: Okay let's just say she made totally inaccurate misleading statements which could be interpreted as lies. But she didn't mean to deceive anyone so that's okay. We have two conflicting statements, one by the councillor and one in the FOI response. I would not think that we have sufficient evidence to conclusively say which one is inaccurate or why that is. The further FOI responses may provide better information on which to base an informed opinion. I’d say that it is reasonable to ask the council ( and councillor) to explain the discrepancy. 2 minutes ago, mike1961 said: So it's all the lentil eating tree huggers fault then? There’s no denying that the government only acted because Client Earth, a firm of environmental activist lawyers, took them to court and won. The courts instructed the government to act as soon as reasonably practical with a threat of further action and huge fines for non compliance. It was pretty clear that the government were not minded to take action to remedy the air quality legal breaches before that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffbag Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 3 hours ago, Planner1 said: We have two conflicting statements, one by the councillor and one in the FOI response. I would not think that we have sufficient evidence to conclusively say which one is inaccurate or why that is. The further FOI responses may provide better information on which to base an informed opinion. I’d say that it is reasonable to ask the council ( and councillor) to explain the discrepancy. i woudl slightly and respectfully disagree. We have a statement from SCC in the form of an FOi request to the question as to did SCC formally or informally ask the govt to effectively stop the CAZ - The answer is no We have a statement on air from Julie Crucott (sp) saying that her office tried and tried and tried but (see part 2) We have a statement from SCC in the form of an FOI request to the question would the govt step in and run the scheme if SCC refused - The answer is no and official govt documents back that up. We have a statement (part 2) from Julie that the govt said "they would come to sheffield and run it" the inaccurate one is JC, there is enough evidence. The further FOI requests (2 of them) challenge her actual interview in particular but given the council has already admitted that the govt woudl not "come to sheffield" and that SCC has NEVER asked the govt to remove the mandate formally or informally. But I will wait before i raise it further either to the council or elsewhere.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 9 minutes ago, sheffbag said: i woudl slightly and respectfully disagree. We have a statement from SCC in the form of an FOi request to the question as to did SCC formally or informally ask the govt to effectively stop the CAZ - The answer is no We have a statement on air from Julie Crucott (sp) saying that her office tried and tried and tried but (see part 2) We have a statement from SCC in the form of an FOI request to the question would the govt step in and run the scheme if SCC refused - The answer is no and official govt documents back that up. We have a statement (part 2) from Julie that the govt said "they would come to sheffield and run it" the inaccurate one is JC, there is enough evidence. The further FOI requests (2 of them) challenge her actual interview in particular but given the council has already admitted that the govt woudl not "come to sheffield" and that SCC has NEVER asked the govt to remove the mandate formally or informally. But I will wait before i raise it further either to the council or elsewhere.......... In post #2324 you mentioned that the FOI response said: “No, although a failure to implement the scheme would have resulted in a breach of a legal duty, giving rise to risk of judicial review proceedings, complaints of maladministration, and enforcement action by the Office for Environmental Protection.” Do we know what the enforcement action might be? When are the other responses due? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 Seems lying about anti-pollution via charging vehicles is something that authorities are willing to blatantly lie about. Although this is one is about London, it's no stretch to believe that these antics haven't gone on elsewhere https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12425109/Sadiq-Khans-office-silence-scientists-Mayor-Londons-ambitious-Ulez-plans-little-impact-pollution.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike1961 Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Resident said: Seems lying about anti-pollution via charging vehicles is something that authorities are willing to blatantly lie about. Although this is one is about London, it's no stretch to believe that these antics haven't gone on elsewhere https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12425109/Sadiq-Khans-office-silence-scientists-Mayor-Londons-ambitious-Ulez-plans-little-impact-pollution.html Do remember though the authorities are only lying if they are intending to deceive. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Resident said: Seems lying about anti-pollution via charging vehicles is something that authorities are willing to blatantly lie about. Although this is one is about London, it's no stretch to believe that these antics haven't gone on elsewhere https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12425109/Sadiq-Khans-office-silence-scientists-Mayor-Londons-ambitious-Ulez-plans-little-impact-pollution.html From my reading, article doesn’t actually accuse anyone of lying. Basically it says academics disagree about ULEZ data and the deputy mayor has expressed disappointment that a university they have funded has published research which they feel undermines the mayors policies. 19 minutes ago, mike1961 said: Do remember though the authorities are only lying if they are intending to deceive. Lol. What exactly is it that you find amusing in the commonly held understanding of what constitutes a lie? The common understanding is that for something to be a lie, there has to be an intention to deceive. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike1961 Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Planner1 said: From my reading, article doesn’t actually accuse anyone of lying. Basically it says academics disagree about ULEZ data and the deputy mayor has expressed disappointment that a university they have funded has published research which they feel undermines the mayors policies. What exactly is it that you find amusing in the commonly held understanding of what constitutes a lie? The common understanding is that for something to be a lie, there has to be an intention to deceive. Look it up if you don’t believe me. You amuse me ,it's not that I don't believe you unless your lying of course but then you would have to be openly wanting to deceive me as well. I just find this to be a great get out clause for politicians, councillors and Members of parliament who are caught lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogets Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 I think something needs to be done about parking when the local football matches are on. I find it very difficult to find a parking space for the matches, because of all the other football fans parking their cars 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padders Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 33 minutes ago, rogets said: I think something needs to be done about parking when the local football matches are on. I find it very difficult to find a parking space for the matches, because of all the other football fans parking their cars I agree with you Rogets... It's a common problem. People should leave their cars at home, and walk any short distances of 15 miles or more. People are lazy in this country.. In Ethiopia people leave their cars at home, and walk the 20/30 miles to fill up a Jerry can of water.. Why can't we be the same? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz 786 Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 If they implement this in every city and town it will cost around £300 plus fuel to get to skeggy... 3 hours ago, Padders said: I agree with you Rogets... It's a common problem. People should leave their cars at home, and walk any short distances of 15 miles or more. People are lazy in this country.. In Ethiopia people leave their cars at home, and walk the 20/30 miles to fill up a Jerry can of water.. Why can't we be the same? They should build their huts nearer to the river ! 1 2 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