Everyone wants to be safe in a taxi

It says that anybody applying for a hackney drivers licence you must undergo a DBS criminal records check to ensure that anyone ordering a taxi can be assured they will be safe, obviousley not.

Regarding the installation of cameras in taxis in Rotherham they only have to have cameras installed if they are registered in Rotherham, but if they get registered in other cities they get round that ruling.

Does Sheffield Council insist on cameras in all taxis?

If the drivers refuse then their hackney cab license should definitely be cancelled.

If I send for a taxi to take a female member, (or male), anywhere I would like to know they will be safe.

Dave M

by email

Months of misery

We in Sheffield are a greedy bunch, we expect 600 quid to be spent on us at Christmas time.

I dont expect anywhere near that amount, I am easily pleased, bottle of bubble bath suits me just fine.

My child knows he will be getting some presents but he’s not one for looking through the Argos book and demanding everything he sees.

Christmas is nice for many reasons but getting yourself into debt for one day is madness.

You can give nice pressies, you don’t have to spend silly amounts.

If you have to get into debt to fund Christmas it’s really not worth it, one day of smiles then months of misery trying to pay it all back.

Jayne Grayson

by email

Citizens at risk?

I am getting so fed up of having to complain about the state that our pavements are left in while the streets ahead works. are carried out .

I have reported it to the HSE three times for breaches of health and safety as it is the only way to get a response.

What bothers me is that the council, which are well aware of the situation, seem to do nothing, preferring to sing the praises of Amey, because of the current trees situation.

The council is happy to justify removing perfectly healthy trees because they say they are creating a hazard to pedestrians yet do nothing when holes are left in the pavements for months. It seems that the council are more interested in saving face than in the safety of its citizens,

Anne Walker

Birkendale Rd, Sheffield

Amey: this allegation is inaccuarte

In The Star’s December 2 edition a reader letter entitled Open letter to Louise Haigh alleged that the street tree replacement programme in Sheffield was ‘purely a product of the drive for profit by Amey.’

This often-repeated allegation is inaccurate.

The truth is that Amey is paid a monthly fee by Sheffield City Council to carry out maintenance and upgrade works to the highway and we receive no additional payments above and beyond that amount when a street tree is replaced. There is no financial incentive encouraging Amey to replace trees.

In a recent High Court judgment, Mr Justice Males dealt with similar claims.

He described the allegation that healthy trees are being felled because Amey is exercising improper influence over the Council with a view to illegitimate profiteering as being ‘detached from reality’.

It’s worth remembering that our programme will improve and increase the street tree population, not reduce it.

We’re only replacing street trees which are dead, dying, diseased, damaging or causing access problems.

Prior to Streets Ahead, trees in this condition were removed without being replaced, because the Council didn’t have the money.

So, as well as replacing the trees identified within the contract, we’ll be planting an extra 600 street trees over the course of the contract.

The result will be to transform an urban forest which was facing a future of gradual decline with one that has a healthy, more resilient future.

When a tree is assessed and identified for replacement under the contract, Amey make recommendations to the Council.

The Council then undertakes independent assessments before making a final decision on each tree.

This is fully covered in the Council’s myth-busting document which is available on its website.

See Myth 10 on http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/treemythbusting2/ if you would like more information.

Darren Butt

Account Director, Streets Ahead, Amey

Fair’s fair?

The Star, reports (December 11, 2017), that Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield is set to be awarded legal aid to fight possible prosecution on charges of gross negligence manslaughter.

There has been considerable coverage regarding the Hillsborough football disaster and the ensuing legal costs.

The then Chief Superintendent Duckenfield led the police team assigned to control law and order at the match. He was responsible for the officers under his command.

His past legal costs on behalf of the force are quoted as several million pounds. This sum has previously been paid through the Police Authority, and more recently with the approval of the Police and Crime Commissioner Dr Alan Billings. These costs have been a drain on the police budget for Sheffield and South Yorkshire. The money could and should have been spent on improving their service to the community which they are tasked with protecting.

Dr Billings has in my opinion, quite rightly said it is not appropriate to fund Mr Duckenfield’s latest request for his legal costs. This has resulted in his legal team now taking the matter to the Royal Courts of Justice in London and the Star report that he is set to be awarded legal aid.

Could I ask Dr Billings or one of your legal team to enlighten your readers regarding the criteria for granting legal aid in criminal cases?

Gov UK Guidance for criminal aid/means testing updated 27.2.2017 states that applicants with a household disposable income of £37500 or more are not eligible for legal aid for a Crown court trial. For income between £12475 and £22325 there is a possible contribution dependent on a full means test.

If Mr Duckenfield’s disposable income/assets exceed these guidelines can someone please explain the reasons for him about to be granted legal aid? I fully accept that he is entitled to legal representation at any criminal trial, but when those astronomical legal costs, previously paid from the police budget, are taken into account, surely a self contribution towards any new State or police costs incurred on behalf of Mr Duckenfield would not come amiss?

Cyril Olsen

Busk Meadow, Sheffield, S5