UKC

/ Lady arrested 4 blowing plastic horn in Sheffield

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Timmd on 21 Mar 2018

Following a peaceful 74 year old man with a camera being arrested by the police for witness intimidation (and being released without charge), today a middle aged woman who was blowing a plastic horn, was arrested by South Yorkshire Police, who, never knowingly on the right side of history, have been assisting private company AMEY in carrying out the felling of 17.000 trees in Sheffield, a figure arrived at by opaque means, which has no indication of being based upon recognised street tree management best practice. 

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/woman-arrested-for-blowing-horn-at-sheffield-tree-felling-protest-1-9076222

5
TobyA on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

> South Yorkshire Police, who, never knowingly on the right side of history, have been assisting private company AMEY in carrying out the felling of 17.000 trees in Sheffield

You make it sound like the police are out there with chainsaws. They are not "assisting private company AMEY in carrying out the felling of 17.000 trees", they are in the unenviable position of having to check both AMEY's security guards and protestors both respect the law.

They've done my street and the fuss all seems faintly ridiculous now. Some tree went, most didn't. Some of the protesters comments are pretty laughable too, particularly complaining about crime going up because they are using up police resources with their protests! But at least it might make people in the leafy western suburbs a bit more sensitive to what people on the shittier side of town experience as being "policed".

Meanwhile the streets continue to crack and potholes open up ever deeper, schools go into deficit and children's health and pre-school services get cut back. 

 

15
Timmd on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> You make it sound like the police are out there with chainsaws. They are not "assisting private company AMEY in carrying out the felling of 17.000 trees", they are in the unenviable position of having to check both AMEY's security guards and protestors both respect the law.

I respectfully suggest that anybody with common sense would know that the police wouldn't be using chainsaws? Even with footage of security guards using upper cuts (in the worst example I've seen) against protesters, which can be found on the STAG site, and possibly on youtube as well, no private security have been charged, or even arrested and released without charge. Though Mr Uppercut doesn't seem to be employed by/assisting AMEY anymore.

> They've done my street and the fuss all seems faintly ridiculous now. Some tree went, most didn't. Some of the protesters comments are pretty laughable too, particularly complaining about crime going up because they are using up police resources with their protests! But at least it might make people in the leafy western suburbs a bit more sensitive to what people on the shittier side of town experience as being "policed".

Hmmn, when it comes to the rare Elm tree, and providing habitat for birds and other wildlife, it rather isn't about class, or the location of the trees within the city, but about protecting what is a valuable habitat, and protecting trees which help to improve Sheffield's air quality, too (with air tending to move around, they're likely to be helpful beyond their immediate location). That the trees are in the more wealthy parts of the city is a problem which should be resolved (I've often thought places like Tinsley and Darnell etc could do with more trees and greenery), rather than something to (imo falsely) discredit people who are trying to stop the trees from being felled. Certainly, I personally know two tree protesters who are not at all from the leafy and wealthier parts of the city, so, for a few reasons, the class/wealth side to things isn't particularly valid, in my opinion.  

> Meanwhile the streets continue to crack and potholes open up ever deeper, schools go into deficit and children's health and pre-school services get cut back. 

I'm not too sure what this has to do with stopping 17.000 trees from being cut down...?

Post edited at 22:57
6
Kemics - on 21 Mar 2018

I some how find it hard to believe they have the accuracy within their data to count trees to 3 decimal places...

3
gethin_allen on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to TobyA:

"But at least it might make people in the leafy western suburbs a bit more sensitive to what people on the shittier side of town experience as being "policed"."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, are you suggesting that there is a class bias to the policing in sheffield? Surely they go to where the crime happens and crap places are often crap places because of the crime which is often caused by those that live there.

When I lived in Darnal there was an ice cream van selling drugs, the woman next door was on the game, the car was broken into three times despite being empty and an old bag of rust. and when I lived in Broomhall a house a few doors down was raided for selling drugs. 

Should the cops go and smash down the door of a nice house in Ranmoor because they're not selling drugs?

"Meanwhile the streets continue to crack and potholes open up ever deeper, schools go into deficit and children's health and pre-school services get cut back. "

I wonder what's going to happen when all the roots from the felled trees rot? my guess is that the roads and pavements which are being repaired now will collapse into the holes where the tree roots were.

4
Pursued by a bear - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

What are you complaining about, precisely: the behaviour of the police or the actions of the council?

I might have some sympathy if I knew what it was I was being asked to be offended by but your rather gushing, if earnest, post hasn't convinced me that it's warranted.

T.

6
Timmd on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

You don't think that being arrested for blowing a plastic horn is rather silly, and a waste of police time and resources, too?

Can one not have a problem with several things at once?

I just felt like starting a thread about what happened today, with the bigger picture as a context. 

Critique away.... ;-)

Post edited at 23:07
4
TobyA on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to gethin_allen:

There is class bias to policing everywhere, not just Sheffield.

Rob Parsons on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to TobyA:

>.... But at least it might make people in the leafy western suburbs a bit more sensitive to what people on the shittier side of town experience as being "policed".

A ridiculous comment.

However, for the record: whereabouts in Sheffield do you live, and what unfair policing have you yourself been subjected to?

> Meanwhile the streets continue to crack and potholes open up ever deeper, schools go into deficit and children's health and pre-school services get cut back. 

You are mixing up all kinds of issues here. But the fundamental one is insufficient funding from central government, isn't it?

1
deepsoup - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to TobyA:

>  they are in the unenviable position of having to check both AMEY's security guards and protestors both respect the law.

And they're going right back to the '80s in their old-school approach.  Turning a blind eye to assaults on the one side of the Heras fencing, whilst arresting people on the most ludicrous of trumped up charges on the other.

3
Blue Straggler - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

> Critique away.... ;-)

 

Did you write your OP or paste it in from somewhere?

Why is there a "4" instead of a "for" in the thread title?

 

1
Rampikino - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

A woman protesting at the felling of trees in Sheffield has been arrested for blowing a horn and setting off a rape alarm today - with another protester taken to hospital after suffering an injury moments after being removed from inside safety barriers by private security guards.

Police said the arrest on Rivelin Valley Road had been made following a complaint about the horn-blowing from a member of the public.

 

She was arrested for on suspicion of causing intentional harm or distress, under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 and has received a court summons.

 

A video posted online of the incident shows the woman telling a police officer she had set off the alarm “because they are raping the trees”. Shortly after switching it off and then blowing a horn, she was arrested by police.

Gordonbp - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Seems to me that arresting was a bit of overkill - did the police deliberately give themselves lots of paperwork?

2
Billhook - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

No 'lady' would ever blow on a plastic horn!  Most hunts use silver or copper ones.

 

1
Smears on 22 Mar 2018
Makemake002 - on 22 Mar 2018

I think she has a point “I’m not breaking any laws. It’s after seven in the morning and before seven in the evening.” Chainsaw is much noisier than blowing a horn

 

1
fred99 - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Gordonbp:

> Seems to me that arresting was a bit of overkill - did the police deliberately give themselves lots of paperwork?

Maybe the copper in question had got fed up and wanted to go to the station for a break, cup of tea, a bite to eat and so forth. After all, that's where the canteen is located. Once they arrived at the station he probably had a few hours away from the front line.

deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Makemake002:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43488373/anger-over-sheffield-s-plan-to-fell-healthy-trees

If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, fast forward to 4:55 - there's some footage of this woman "causing intentional harm or distress" to that poor defenceless police officer with her terrifying vuvuzela.

1
Bellie on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

Dont piss off a bobby, simples. Not a modern thing. He tells her not to do it and she blurts it in his face anyway. If id have been the bobby i think i'd have done the same. She failed the attitude test. No sympathy here really.

 

18
deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> Dont piss off a bobby, simples.

By, say, attending a peaceful protest when a bobby would prefer you not to be there?  Not really compatible with democracy that, is it.

> He tells her not to do it and she blurts it in his face anyway.

In his face?  He was away on the other side of the street.  It takes him a full ten seconds to come steaming back over to arrest her.

He's the one who fails the attitude test here. The police are there to keep the peace.  If you're more interested in exercising power over someone you think is a bit annoying, you're really not cut out to be a copper.  Failure to properly respect Constable Savage's authoritah is not a crime.

2
Bellie on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

Id wager the bobbies all stood around couldnt give a toss about whether a protest is there or not. Witness smiling faces and boredom in many cases.  Hardly a breakdown in democracy.

 

 

krikoman - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

"Can you PLEASE stop blowing that f*cking horn, I can't hear the chainsaws!!"

1
MG - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

>  who, never knowingly on the right side of history, have been assisting private company AMEY

I think what's going in Sheffield is terrible but this sort of  statement is absurd. The police are there to maintain law and order, not take sides in history.  Also they aren't assisting Amey, beyond ensuring their employees can undertake work that is, like it or not, entirely legal.   I'm rather sympathetic with the police in fact, they are in an impossible position in the middle of dispute that is nothing to do with them

 

1
Chris Harris - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> Dont piss off a bobby, simples. Not a modern thing. He tells her not to do it and she blurts it in his face anyway. If id have been the bobby i think i'd have done the same. She failed the attitude test. No sympathy here really.

 

I thought is was supposed to be failing the "obeying the law" test that got you nicked....

 

deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

It's a bit hyperbolic certainly.  But South Yorkshire Police have been working to rebuild trust after some truly dreadful behaviour on their part back in the '80s.  Something they could have made headway with a lot sooner if they hadn't spent decades fighting tooth and nail trying to prevent the truth from coming out.  They are in an extremely difficult position of course, but they *really* need to raise their game in the way they're handling this.

Chris the Tall - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

For anyone wanting some background on the mess

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/25/for-the-chop-the-battle-to-save-sheffields-trees

I have no idea what the solution is, as both sides are now bitterly entrenched. Quite a shock to see half a dozen police vans heading out in a convoy this morning - it's as if there is a big match on.

Can someone clarify something. We are told that AMEY could cut down (and replace) half of the city's trees over the next 25 years.

I'm guessing that in fact they are dealing with roadside trees. And that in fact this represents only a tiny fraction of the total number of trees. For example there was a lot of fuss over 8 trees in Rustlings Road, but very little mention that this road is sandwiched between two parks, each with several hundred trees in them. Likewise Rivelin Road and Abbeydale Park Road.  

Bellie on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

I agree, but we arent seeing the endless footage where nothing happens, and its pretty much straightforward policing. Sadly they are in a no win situation when a protestor crosses the barriers and with emotions high it spirals. In fairness, whilst i repeat that i have little sympathy for the lady who does exactly what she is asked not to do, it does give ammo for those who feel the police are against them in all this, when it was hardly a massive deal.

 

deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris Harris:

Here's an interesting read.  The founding principles of British policing, as laid out to our first professional police service the original Peelers back in 1829.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

Amazingly far sighted for its time, it's a high standard that has been fallen well short of from time to time, not least by the Met themselves, but *this* is what our police are supposed to aspire to.

1
Bellie on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris Harris:

I know, but show me where giving lip to an officer or not doing as instructed has resulted in them saying ok, I'll be off then.

 

deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Bellie:

> it was hardly a massive deal.

It might be business as usual for the copper in question, though I rather hope it isn't, but a wrongful arrest is always likely to be a pretty big deal to the person who is wrongfully arrested.

1
Bellie on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

You misread my post, I was referring to what she actually did as not being such a big deal (despite my flippant post) so with regard to you speaking of SYP building bridges, perhaps the officer could have been more diplomatic perhaps, in engaging with her.

Rampkino's post upthread suggests maybe she had been spoken to prior to the footage. 

 

 

deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> We are told that AMEY could cut down (and replace) half of the city's trees over the next 25 years.

Street trees are not necessarily being replaced. 

There's been some effort to create the impression that every tree felled will be directly replaced with a new sapling but this is at best misleading, at worst an outright lie.  What they're actually claiming to be doing in every case is not replacement, more a sort of 'offsetting'.

AMEY have said that each tree felled will be replaced with new tree *somewhere*.  Mostly likely in a park, or in woodland somewhere away from where the original tree was felled.  It hasn't been made clear quite how they're going to achieve this when the spaces where these new trees are supposed to go in is beyond their remit, nor how they will be accounted for so we can all see it's actually happening.

timjones - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to krikoman:

I like your sentiment. There is something relaxing and almost soporific about the sound of someone beavering away with a chainsaw, that cheap raucous plastic horn just sounds horrendous and is designed to irritate ;)

deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Bellie:

>  perhaps the officer could have been more diplomatic perhaps, in engaging with her.

Perhaps he could have reflected on whether he has the authority to order a member of the public to comply with his wishes, in this case to remain silent, regardless of whether or not she's breaking the law.  I couldn't be a copper, lose my temper far too easily.  Maybe this kid shouldn't be a copper either.

Is Off Duty still posting here?  I'd be interested in his take on this.

MG - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

Is this an council election issue?  I'd have thought councillors supporting felling would be in trouble.

Neil Williams - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to timjones:

Is it loud enough to cause ear injury and therefore be assaulting a police officer?

Chris the Tall - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

A third of the council is up for re-election every year

Not surprisingly Labour support is lowest in the areas with the most trees.

   

Rob Parsons on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

> Is this an council election issue?  I'd have thought councillors supporting felling would be in trouble.


They might well be in trouble, but, really, who cares? The damage has already been done since the contract has been let, and presumably can't be revoked without swingeing penalties.

deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

> Is this an council election issue?

I would think it's bound to be, especially in the more 'leafy' parts of the city.

I wonder if it will have an impact on the campaigns of sitting councillors - how many people are willing to go out knocking doors and wotnot on their behalf.  Those who are actively involved in their local Labour party, for example, are probably also more likely to have been involved in the protests than most.

Chris the Tall - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

You would expect a contract like this to allow a certain degree of flexibility, and therefore cater for the fact that like for like replacement isn't always possible. But on Rustlings Road and Abbeydale Park Rise it does appear that they have simply replaced them.

Now of course a young tree isn't the same as an old one, but at some point trees do need to be replaced.

BTW i have found the answer to my question. Sheffield has approx 2 million trees. So we are talking about replacing 1% of the total, over 25 years.

I initially agreed with these protests, but it's got to the point now where all they are going to achieve is bankrupting the council

Presley Whippet on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

She didn't just blow a trumpet though did she? 

She set off a rape alarm, which is a pretty serious thing to do if you are not being attacked, it falls in the same category as falsely setting off a fire alarm, interfering with a safety mechanism or making a hoax emergency call. For that alone she deserved to be arrested

2
Mike Highbury - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> She set off a rape alarm, ... it falls in the same category as falsely setting off a fire alarm, interfering with a safety mechanism or making a hoax emergency call. 

She may be a pest but you do talk some rot.

 

3
MG - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Hardly the point. The protests are about trres on streets, of which 17000 forms a large proportion.

Presley Whippet on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Mike Highbury:

Nope, it is a shitty thing to do. It cries wolf and diverts resources. An attack alarm has been heard at a public gathering, it has to be located and the cause identified. False alarms are serious stuff. 

5
Chris the Tall - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

But one of the key arguments is the role trees play in producing oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide. 

Air quality is very important and Sheffield has a problem, but saving these trees won't make much difference, especially in the areas where the problems are most severe.  

1
MG - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris the Tall:

And wildlife and shade and beauty and character and attitude constituents etc. 

timjones - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

> And wildlife and shade and beauty and character and attitude constituents etc. 

My observation is that residents tend to forget all of those things as soon as a decent number of starlings roost in trees above their parking spaces ;)

timjones - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Is it loud enough to cause ear injury and therefore be assaulting a police officer?

I'd guess that if you spend enough time blowing one of those things next to peoples ears then you are  likely to end up perforated ;)

 

Rob Parsons on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> But one of the key arguments is the role trees play in producing oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide. 

A miserably utilitarian view of a tree.

 

Chris the Tall - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

All of which are very important.

But nonetheless there is a big difference between 50% (the number of roadside trees being replaced) and 1% (the number in the city as a whole).

I wonder if Micheal Palin has been approached to do a version of the Monty Python song - "Every tree is sacred" 

Chris the Tall - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> A miserably utilitarian view of a tree.

"Yeah, the trees, those useless trees produce the air that I am breathing."

Yep, even by Jarvis's standards it's not the most cheerful of lyrics

 

MG - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Maybe people could choose by street or something and pay for their own tree management. You could have sterile wall to wall concrete, others pleasant street-scapes.

Chris the Tall - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

Do you really think that could work ? A "pretty street surcharge" on your council tax ? Maybe a surcharge if you want your street resurfaced or speed bumps installed

The fundamental problem here is the outsourcing of council work via PFI contracts. SCC now has obligation to Amey, Amey has obligations to it shareholders etc etc.

Whether you blame Labour for agreeing such a wretched deal, or the Tories/Lib Dems for the austerity measures that so crippled councils and pushed them into it, or even the Greens for grandstanding and exaggeration, we have a mess that no-one - if they are being honest - has a solution to.

 

MG - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Do you really think that could work ? A "pretty street surcharge" on your council tax ? Maybe a surcharge if you want your street resurfaced or speed bumps installed

Why not? Some seem to regard trees.as a frivolous waste. Others don't. (Really) local decisions might be a solution.

Neil Williams - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> She set off a rape alarm, which is a pretty serious thing to do if you are not being attacked, it falls in the same category as falsely setting off a fire alarm, interfering with a safety mechanism or making a hoax emergency call. For that alone she deserved to be arrested

It's a stupid thing to do, but that isn't in and of itself illegal.

deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> BTW i have found the answer to my question. Sheffield has approx 2 million trees. So we are talking about replacing 1% of the total, over 25 years.

That'll be the same definition of "Sheffield" that says a third of the city is in the Peak District National Park I suspect.  The administrative area that falls under the jurisdiction of the Sheffield City Council. 

That statistic is a nice bit of PR puff for the "Outdoor City", but includes a vast area that could not by any reasonable definition be considered to be a part of the conurbation known as "Sheffield", the city itself.

We're talking about 50% of the city's street trees, and there is no guarantee as to what proportion of them actually will be replaced.

1
deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> it has to be located and the cause identified.

Gosh yes.  If that were true it would certainly be a huge drain on police resources.  Unless of course there happened to be four dozen coppers already on site you complete muppet.

 

Post edited at 18:30
4
deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Air quality is very important and Sheffield has a problem, but saving these trees won't make much difference, especially in the areas where the problems are most severe.  

I'm not so sure that the presence of trees doesn't have a very beneficial effect extremely locally, as well as on a more um..  global scale.

Eg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/09/scientists-have-discovered-that-living-near-trees-is-good-for-your-health/?utm_term=.f608b38c7708

Yanis Nayu - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

That whole episode is a disgrace - the Council and the Police are absolute cnuts. 

3
deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

The apple tree almost in front of my house was felled last year.  The pavement was then resurfaced around the stump, with no difficulty at all because the tree had not disturbed the pavement one jot.  (Nor the road which had already been done at this point.)

A few months later, Amey rocked up and pulled out the stump.  (I didn't see them do it, I was out at the time.  They accomplished this feat in the space of a couple of hours without disturbing the new pavement.)

A few months later again (six months after felling the tree) they turned up again.  "Oh good", thought I, "that'll be the new sapling going in."  What they did was rip out the stones surrounding the square of earth where the tree had stood, and pull up the tarmac immediately around it and extending across the rest of the width of the pavement.  Then they tipped a barrow load of hardcore in the space left by the stump, compacted it down and tarmacked over the whole thing.

So now what we have is a big tarmac patch on the otherwise brand new pavement.

It wasn't particularly big or special as Sheffield street trees go, but I will miss it.  Particularly as spring rolls around because it was really quite beautiful in blossom.  Some of my neighbours probably won't miss the bird poo and the odd apple falling on their cars when they parked underneath it, miserably buggers.

I'll miss the apples though, they were bloody delicious.  (Though needed eating with caution as, not being from the supermarket, they would often have a worm in.)

Bellie on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

I seem to recall a hugh fearnley whittingstall episode filmed in sheff, where a group collected apples from some of the trees. Mostly from the various trees on open spaces. Many varieties of apple. Quite interesting what was out there.

Post edited at 19:38
off-duty - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Seems like a dubious arrest. Not sure what's happened before, but I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash.

Looks like a typical crap job for the cops, stuck in between two bunches of people, neither of whom are behaving partivpartic pleasantly, knowing that they will bear the brunt of any fallout for no thanks.

Bellie on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Except its those same cnuts who will put their life on the line for you.  

Yanis Nayu - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Bellie:

I’m not talking about the police in general, I’m talking about SYP, who have Hillsborough and the Miners’ Strikes on their CV and are now acting like a paramilitary force on behalf of a Council and contractor committing legalised environmental vandalism. I bet you or I wouldn’t get that kind of response if our car had been nicked or our windows broken. And remember that the protestors are not exactly West Ham fans - they’re more like Giles from Gogglebox. 

3
deepsoup - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Bellie:

It'd be nice to see more urban fruit trees - anything that helps kids, city kids especially, to realise that food isn't necessarily something that comes wrapped in plastic in Tesco can only be a good thing for the <ahem> 'health of the nation'.

Wouldn't mind a few more brambles around the margins of the parks too.  The insects could certainly do with it, bumblebees love them.  Also, blackberries! Yum.

TobyA on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

The geography and sociology of policing is hardly a ridiculous comment, its something that has been studied for at least 50 years and now in cities all around the world.

I live in the south of Sheffield but that's not the point. I also didn't say anything about unfair policing, and definitely didn't claim that I had suffered from any. But quite clearly, a lot of the shock of many of the protestors is that they are being 'policed' at all, be that good or bad policing policing in your or my opinion. Certain social groups; football fans, young black (and increasingly Asian) men, people living in certain parts of cities for instance, have rather different experiences of policing.

Chris the Tall - on 22 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

> That'll be the same definition of "Sheffield" that says a third of the city is in the Peak District National Park I suspect.  The administrative area that falls under the jurisdiction of the Sheffield City Council. 

Fair point, but those areas aren’t exactly heavily wooded. So this evening i’ve been out to Bradway  for a drink or 2 with a mate, and cycled through Hutcliffe Woods, Bueachief, Ecclesall Woods, Bluebell Woods, Bingham and Endcliffe parks. And one other I don’t know the name of. 7 different areas of woodland in an 11 mile circular ride from the city centre. And it’s one of the main reasons I love Sheffield. So the figure of 2 million trees seems about right to me. 

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t agree with the way the council or  Amey are going about this, but at the same time I think the reaction is proportionate. 

Tom V - on 23 Mar 2018
In reply to TobyA:

I wonder what sort of person becoming involved in a protest of this scale, with all the associated publicity that it has engendered, would still be "shocked" that they were being policed at all. 

Presley Whippet on 23 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

> you complete muppet.

Gosh, what a delightful place this is, such lovely people to interact with. 

2
Circus - on 23 Mar 2018
In reply to timjones:

Plastic horn...awful tinny sort of sound!

Jon Greengrass on 23 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Are there any treehouses yet?

Yanis Nayu - on 23 Mar 2018
In reply to Gordonbp:

Funniest comment I saw on Twitter was asking if the police could prosecute themselves for wasting their own time. 

1
The New NickB - on 23 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

> If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, fast forward to 4:55 - there's some footage of this woman "causing intentional harm or distress" to that poor defenceless police officer with her terrifying vuvuzela.

Bloody PC PC Plod, arresting her for cultural appropriation!

off-duty - on 24 Mar 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I’m not talking about the police in general, I’m talking about SYP, who have Hillsborough and the Miners’ Strikes on their CV and are now acting like a paramilitary force on behalf of a Council and contractor committing legalised environmental vandalism. I bet you or I wouldn’t get that kind of response if our car had been nicked or our windows broken. And remember that the protestors are not exactly West Ham fans - they’re more like Giles from Gogglebox. 

Yep, let's label an entire force for the actions of some 30 years ago. Seems reasonable.

Obviously requires ignoring an awful lot of other factors, not least the routine good work that goes on, but f@@k 'em. ACAB.

PS. Please advise when your house is going to be burgled, so that, as with a preplanned protest which is intent on disrupting lawful activity, police can be deployed.

1
Yanis Nayu - on 24 Mar 2018
In reply to off-duty:

They don’t seem to have changed much though do they? We’ve got the hero in this clip arresting an old lady for blowing a toy trumpet, and weren’t they heavily criticised for their actions during the Hillsborough inquiry not so long back?

I don’t think all coppers are bastards by the way - although the one in the clip above is undoubtedly a tw*t. 

4
Presley Whippet on 24 Mar 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

The reporting of the incident has all been rather biased. The lady in question was not playing with a child's toy she was blowing a vuvuzela. Iirc these have been banned from a number of football grounds to protect the hearing of surrounding supporters. She also set off a personal attack alarm, those things are also dangerously loud, loud enough that a clever lawyer could probably argue for their misuse being classified as using an offensive weapon. I think it was wise of the police to remove her from the protest.

The arrest looks poor on the strength of the reporting but when you scratch the surface and look at the detail, it was a balanced decision. Not Orgreave, not Hillsborough. 

Tom V - on 24 Mar 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Just watched the clip for the first time.

1.) Why is her age relevant,any more than her hair colour or ethnicity?

2.) Anyone else think she actually wanted to be arrested? (Apart from me and Andy Warhol)

1
Tom V - on 24 Mar 2018
In reply to Tom V:

How time flies!

Lady in question moved from being "middle aged" to "old" in the space of 3 UKC days. If you actually think that it matters.

off-duty - on 25 Mar 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> They don’t seem to have changed much though do they? We’ve got the hero in this clip arresting an old lady for blowing a toy trumpet, and weren’t they heavily criticised for their actions during the Hillsborough inquiry not so long back?

I've commented on the arrest already. Looks dubious, but no idea on the full circs.  Not sure how old the lady was but I'm not sure which law has the age exemption in.

"weren’t they heavily criticised for their actions during the Hillsborough inquiry not so long back?"

Since you made the sweeping generalisation, how about you look up exactly what actions of SYP you object to. I'm guessing it's not the providing of mouth to mouth on the pitch.

 

> I don’t think all coppers are bastards by the way - although the one in the clip above is undoubtedly a tw*t. 

"Undoubtedly"  Not entirely sure I'd be so quick to judge, but very illustrative of the way 30 secs of edited  footage can be used to determine an entire character.

Timmd on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

> >  who, never knowingly on the right side of history, have been assisting private company AMEY

> I think what's going in Sheffield is terrible but this sort of  statement is absurd. The police are there to maintain law and order, not take sides in history.  Also they aren't assisting Amey, beyond ensuring their employees can undertake work that is, like it or not, entirely legal.   I'm rather sympathetic with the police in fact, they are in an impossible position in the middle of dispute that is nothing to do with them

Have you seen any of the footage of South Yorkshire Police, and how they've been failing to listen to protesters seeking their attention when it's to do with being man handled by AMEY's private security?

It's as if there's a tacit agreement to let AMEY's security get on with removing people, even when it's technically assault. Plus, they've arrested a middle aged lady blowing a red toy trumpet, another lady playing a plastic pink recorder, and another person with another musical instrument, all under 'breach of the peace'. None of the people arrested (and handily removed off site to let AMEY get on with things more easily) for things relating to disorder have ever been formally charged, but it has added to the 'deterrent factor' for anybody thinking of making their feelings known about the felling of mature and healthy trees, since nobody likes to be arrested. There is a distinct pattern of people being arrested and removed and then released without charge, and AMEY's security not being policed quite so assiduously.  

In what seems to be the interconnected way of Sheffield, I'm only a couple of people removed from the lady who was removed for blowing her red trumpet, and she really wasn't removed for anything other than that. She was warned, and blew a cheeky toot at the retreating back of the police man who warned her, and after that she was taken away in a police van for 'breach of the peace'. I may have been rather careless in how I put things, about SYP being being never knowingly on the right side of history, but after the lady and her plastic trumpet related arrest, it's hard to know quite what to think of SYP. 

Post edited at 13:52
1
Timmd on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Putting South Yorkshire Police to one side, there is quite a well balanced article here, about the rationale for removing the trees. Or rather, it may appear, the lack of one.

https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/blog/streets-ahead/

Post edited at 13:50
Whitters - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

> If you're more interested in exercising power over someone you think is a bit annoying, you're really not cut out to be a copper.  

I suspect if we applied that criteria we would have a significantly smaller police force, sorry, service.

 

The New NickB - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to off-duty:

I think he means their actions at the inquiry, you know victim blaming despite those accusations being debunked years ago. I think the polite phrase that was used at the time was “spinning the evidence”.

Post edited at 17:53
1
MG - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

> It's as if there's a tacit agreement to let AMEY's security get on with removing people, even when it's technically assault.

Are you sure?  As I understand it, "reasonable force" is allowed to remove protesters etc. from a site.  That might hurt if they are resisting.

The police have various duties including allowing people to do their legal jobs without interference, allowing people to protest against trees being cut down, and ensuring everyone else can go about their business with being too inconvenienced by all this.   A pretty difficult job.  If the worse mistake is arresting someone for blowing a horn, I'd say they are doing OK.  I'd blame the stupid, intransigent council for not recognising the the benefits of street trees and people's emotional attachment to them for the problems.

off-duty - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> I think he means their actions at the inquiry, you know victim blaming despite those accusations being debunked years ago. I think the polite phrase that was used at the time was “spinning the evidence”.

I'm guessing you mean the inquest rather than the inquiry?

And by 'the police victim blaming' you presumably mean ''the SYP lawyers".

Another sweeping generalisation to suggest that reflects on the entire constabulary, particularly given the multiple apologies made on behalf of the police by the chief, which presumably don't have any impact.

 

1
Tom V - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

I don't recall anyone in the entire history of the Hillsborough tragedy actually blaming the victims, and by victims, I mean those who died or who suffered crush injuries. 

The New NickB - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to off-duty:

No not a sweeping generalisation, just a very high profile example of dishonesty from South Yorkshire Police. Yes, their lawyers being dishonest for them counts as dishonesty, surprising to hear a police officer suggesting otherwise.

Its a simple fact that South Yorkshire Police have a reputation problem that plenty of forces don’t have, the reason for that is partly historical, partly how they have dealt with that history.

Post edited at 20:51
2
off-duty - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> No not a sweeping generalisation, just a very high profile example of dishonesty from South Yorkshire Police. Yes, their lawyers being dishonest for them counts as dishonesty, surprising to hear a police officer suggesting otherwise.

> Its a simple fact that South Yorkshire Police have a reputation problem that plenty of forces don’t have, the reason for that is partly historical, partly how they have dealt with that history.

Such a bad reputation that you were confused between the inquest and the inquiry, chose to ignore the fact it was the lawyers presenting a case, not the officers, ignore the apologies made by the chief, and choose to ignore the resus attempts and other actions carried out at the scene by the actual officers who were there 24 years ago, instead just making sweeping generalisations = 'SYP are bad'.

I would have hoped that we had a higher standard of debate than a Daily Mail style simplistic stereotyping of a force based on what appears to be a tenuous grasp on specifics.

3
The New NickB - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to off-duty:

> Such a bad reputation that you were confused between the inquest and the inquiry, chose to ignore the fact it was the lawyers presenting a case, not the officers, ignore the apologies made by the chief, and choose to ignore the resus attempts and other actions carried out at the scene by the actual officers who were there 24 years ago, instead just making sweeping generalisations = 'SYP are bad'.

I gave a specific modern example of why SYP have reputation problems. The historical issues don’t need describing. The lawyers represent the force, you seem to want to make this personal about individual officers, this really isn’t the case with the possible exception of David Crompton. Likewise, I am  not critising individual officers on the pitch in 1989, to suggest I am is fantacy, it just isn't relevant. There are ongoing prosecutions of senior officers from 1989, which will be another reason why the poor reputation remains, but the only person stating 'SYP are bad' is you. I am stating that SYP has a reputation issue. I am giving reasons why that is the case. This is not making generalisations.

Yes, I confused statements from the inquest with statements from the inquiry. Probably because the case is sufficiently well known for me not to have to google, so I made a small mistake. Much like you thinking Hillsborough was 24 not 29 years ago.

> I would have hoped that we had a higher standard of debate than a Daily Mail style simplistic stereotyping of a force based on what appears to be a tenuous grasp on specifics.

You are claiming arguments that I am simply not making. The stereotyping is yours. I suggest you take a step back and try and understand what I have actually written. You might not end up alienating people who are supportive of the police. Goodnight.

 

Post edited at 23:00
2
Stuart en Écosse - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to Tom V:

> I don't recall anyone in the entire history of the Hillsborough tragedy actually blaming the victims, and by victims, I mean those who died or who suffered crush injuries. 

The Sun.

Rampikino - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to Tom V:

> I don't recall anyone in the entire history of the Hillsborough tragedy actually blaming the victims, and by victims, I mean those who died or who suffered crush injuries. 

Within weeks I had a Jehova's Witness on the doorstep, small child by their side, telling me that the victims brought it on themselves.  They weren't the only ones to make that claim, sadly.

I lost a schoolmate and friend at Hillsborough. The door was slammed in her face...

Tom V - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Stuart en Écosse:

I can't find a sentence where the victims are blamed. 

Tom V - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

I will take your word for what the Jehovah 'Witness said. Who else? I wasn't really thinking about The Flat Earth Society when I said that no one blamed the  96 dead people.

paget - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd: Was it a bugle or a kazoo. Both are annoying in different ways. I fully support the arrest if it was a kazoo, but arrest for  bugle playing!!! I’d be loathe to go on  a hunt again.

 

john yates - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

People stopping workers going about their lawful business? I hadn’t realised that age or class status were material facts in the implementation of the law. Likewise why should the private status of the company - a public quoted company properly constituted  in law - have any bearing on the matter. And before you say I’m in favour of the tree felling. I am not. It has been a disaster. But until now the police have handled a sensitive issue with good grace. You however seem much more motivated by malice based on past malpractice going back decades. I posted this having only read the original OP. 

Post edited at 07:53
2
john yates - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

You clearly don’t understand the taxi principle. 

john yates - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to paget:

Agree if a kazoo or mouth organ it’s an entirely different kettle of fish. 

john yates - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

That will be the Daily Mail that led the press hunt to bring the killers of Stephen Lawrence to justice, risking contempt proceedings in doing so, or were the only national to campaign for (and succeed in) the release of the last Brit (Muslim) held captive in Guantanamo. You might also want to look at the Mail coverage of Hillsborough. 

3
john yates - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Several Latter Day Seventh Adventists dropped by my place 12 years ago and told me the earth was flat and the moon was made of cheese. 

john yates - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Police officer fails to listen - shock. Gross misconduct. Oppressive behaviour. Ugh

The New NickB - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> That will be the Daily Mail that led the press hunt to bring the killers of Stephen Lawrence to justice, risking contempt proceedings in doing so, or were the only national to campaign for (and succeed in) the release of the last Brit (Muslim) held captive in Guantanamo. You might also want to look at the Mail coverage of Hillsborough. 

I haven’t mentioned the Daily Mail.

The New NickB - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You clearly don’t understand the taxi principle. 

Obviously not, could you explain? To be honest, I thought I did, but I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about.

Post edited at 08:28
deepsoup - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Tom V:

> I will take your word for what the Jehovah 'Witness said. Who else?

Chief Superintendent Terry Wain for one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-31729366

Off-duty is right though, in that Hillsborough really isn't relevant here.  Nor is Orgreave (into which there never has been a proper inquiry).  South Yorkshire Police are not covering themselves with glory exactly over this, but there's nothing to suggest anything like their crimes and misdemeanours of the '80s. 

 

john yates - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

Sorry

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

A barrister cannot refuse to represent a defendant on grounds of reputation or guilt. 

MG - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Which is utterly irrelevant the Nick's point...

Rampikino - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Tom V:

I respectfully suggest that you have paid a lot less attention to this matter than others and that, as a result, you are making a claim that is not backed up by other opinion, including the following summary released through legal circles in 2016:

"The finding was a great vindication for the families and friends of the dead who, along with the loss of their loved ones, were themselves victims of an organised cover-up and smear campaign by South Yorkshire Police.  This smear campaign – aggressively supported by sections of the tabloid press (most infamously, The Sun) – was designed to shift blame for the disaster onto the Liverpool fans and even the dead themselves."

From the New York Times (yes, the sources are many and varied):

"At the time, the police accused the Hillsborough victims and other Liverpool fans of causing the disaster through their own drunkenness and disorder, a narrative that the news media eagerly echoed. That made the event a flash point in the public debate over class, poverty and the responsibility of government to its citizens. And because those issues have remained central to British politics and life ever since, so has Hillsborough."

I'm not going to get bogged down in this with you.  I respectfully put it to you that you are mistaken in your assertion.

Post edited at 13:48
The New NickB - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Sorry

> A barrister cannot refuse to represent a defendant on grounds of reputation or guilt. 

Which as MG has pointed out has zero relevance to my point.

There is another “cab rule” as well, about a good leader counting the cost before making the journey. I was aware of both, but couldn’t make sense of either in relation to my point.

john yates - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

Sorry. It was to an earlier response not by you. On a train and mobile. I’m old and not too good at this thing. Nice to see a people understanding predicament of SYP. Sorry again for confusion. 

Timmd on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to MG:

> Are you sure?  As I understand it, "reasonable force" is allowed to remove protesters etc. from a site.  That might hurt if they are resisting.

Specifically, I'm thinking about 'Mr Uppercut' and another fellow who (not for very long) had his hand around a person's throat. Other people have fallen over things on the ground while backing away from AMEY's private security, too. Also, there have been people sitting on walls or leaning against them, where it is legal, who have had barriers placed right next to them, and circa 3 private security people leaning against the barriers with all their body weight all at once, and essentially squashing the people who are legally sitting on or leaning against walls. The AMEY staff - or the people working on their behalf - are definitely entering a grey area when it comes to the legality of how they're handling protesters, while not a single protester has done anything remotely physical against any AMEY employee or associated person.  It's pretty much rule number one two and three for anybody protesting. 

> The police have various duties including allowing people to do their legal jobs without interference, allowing people to protest against trees being cut down, and ensuring everyone else can go about their business with being too inconvenienced by all this.   A pretty difficult job.  If the worse mistake is arresting someone for blowing a horn, I'd say they are doing OK.  I'd blame the stupid, intransigent council for not recognising the the benefits of street trees and people's emotional attachment to them for the problems.

It's an example of a police person not planning ahead, too, in not realising that he'd have to arrest her to avoid losing face, after threatening her with arrest if she didn't stop...and her turning out not to actually stop. The thing is, too, that there's an increase of other crime in the city while there's 30 police men manning tree protests (the focus of resources could appear to be in the wrong place), but you're right about the council.  It isn't just an emotional attachment to the trees, they help towards reducing air pollution (London Plain trees especially, but all the mature trees are helpful), and have mental health benefits, in terms of reducing levels of anxiety and depression, and surprisingly to me, making people who live surrounded by trees feel 7 years younger. They're valuable habitat and source of food for a range of insects and animals, too.  It's about more than a sentimental attachment to the trees I would suggest, because they have measurable benefits to the citizens of Sheffield, and to wildlife and nature. 

The message that trees are being replaced should be taken with a pinch of salt, too, due to how the after care of them once planted can leave something to desired, and that the trees are not always being replaced 'like for like', sometimes trees are planted away from the areas in which the mature trees are being helpful towards reducing air pollution.

It's 'potentially' about local accountability, and more seriously, the nature of how things have been conducted when arranging the contract too. A 25 year long contract is a very long time to commit to, the nature of which isn't (at all) common in general business practices, because it commits the city to a contract which will end once nearly everybody involved is dead (you never agree to a long contract in private enterprise without including get out clauses too - which this contract appears to lack). Without saying anything which could get UKC into trouble, it's hard not to wonder what inducements the people responsible may have been given, keeping in mind that they refuse to disclose the full details of the contract.  I guess I should leave it at that, but it's quite hard not to wonder. 

Post edited at 22:48
3
Big Ger - on 08 Apr 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Clever cartoon about the trees in this fortnight's Private Eye.

1
Timmd on 12 Apr 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Yeah, good old Private Eye, it is awfully true as cartoons go. Somebody might have a plan to buy an Aztec death whistle, which should go down well. ;-) 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.