Nu_Skillz

Heres a list of free fishing in sheffield, they all fish well if you have the patience to learn how to fish them, i usually have a walk arround and talk to the others fishing to get some ideas before i tackle up Arbourthorne Pond – Eastern Avenue, Arbourthorne, Sheffield 2 Crookes Valley Dam – Crookes Valley Road, Crookesmoor, Sheffield 10 Frecheville Pond – Hopedale Road, Frecheville, Sheffield 12 Graves Park – Hemsworth Road, Norton Woodseats, Sheffield 8 Hillsborough Park – Parkside Road, Hillsborough, Sheffield 6 Nancy Pond – Greaves Lane, High Green, Sheffield 30 Rivelin Valley – Rivelin Valley Road, Rivelin, Sheffield 6 Wire Mill Dam – Porter Valley, Whiteley Wood Road, Fulwood, Sheffield 10 paid venues Dam Flaks - £4 day Loxley Fisheries - £5 day Mill Dam Fisheries - £4 day Hope this helps

Give a man a fish and he will feed for the day! Show a man how to catch fish and hell feed for a lifetime. Fishing is not cruel, and anyone who thinks it is needs to go out and see what fishing is all about. Fishing to your average joe, may look bouring, pointless, cruel, ect, and they would probably be better killing what brain cells they have left in their tiny little minds by going for long bouring walk and sitting out side some pub all afternoon getting drunk, possably critasising any activity they dont get involved in....'Get A Life' The fact that Fishing is the No'1 sport/passtime in the UK, and is more popular than Football tells me that it cant be that bouring or pointless. The fact that Fishing requires a licence, and the money from this licence goes towards maintinance of the british waters, making sure that the wildlife is looked after and the british waters and surrounding areas are kept clean and free from polution. Cruel? i dont think so!. The fact that the health and size of the fish currently in britian is a direct result of all the food/bait that they have consumed through fishemen like myself constantly feeding them. Cruel? i dont think so!. Fishermen are usually the 1st to spot any problems on our waters reporting them to the Environment Agency and preventing any further damage, or disasters that could arise from things like low oxygenated water, polution from factorys, illegal tipping/dumping of rubbish, to name just a few. As for the fish feeling pain when hooked in the lip, they dont!, do you feel pain when clipping your nail's or having your hair cut? 'NO' the truth is that the fish have no nerve's in their lips and dont feel anything when hooked, the only distress they may encounter is being lifted out of the water for a brief moment while the hook is removed, fish are hardy creatures and will withstand a lot more stress than being out of the water for a short period, and some fish like Crusian carp, will acctually jump out of the water by themselfs? for all the good that fishing dose this is a small price the fish have to pay in comparrison, and in my oppinion fishing is not as cruel. to all the anti-fishing bregade who are out their i would recomend you find a worthy cause to complain about as your efforts on fishing are a waste of time, and would probably be more effective if you found a cause that you would acctually have some impact on, like stopping folk going on long walks and sitting outside the pub all day

"Is fishing cruel?" never mind the fish's welfair, what about the poor maggot that gets a hook through its torso then dangled in the water untill its drownd or eaten by the fish. barbaric, what kind of world is this we live. anglers should be asshamed of their cruel behavior. bring back hanging,,,thats what i say joking really! fishing is fine as long as your catching!!

a little more info here sheffield has a hand full of museums, you could check them out whie your waiting for this one to re open

Style Wars Wicked!!!

i enjoyed looking through those pete, nice one. brings back a lot of good and bad memorys from my youth, was sad to see the flats go,,, their was a real sence of comunity on the Kelvin, it wasent just the bricks and mortar that got demolished.

igrnoence must be bliss, if you cant be bothered to look for the truth about issues yourself and want to continue through life beliving everything the government, papers and big money organisations tell you thats your choice. i wont drink myself to death as i dont drink. but its proven that drink is a killer, i know quite a few people who have lost their life to drink. As for Thinking Drinking could not hurt you,, I hope that you never get hit by a drunk driver, or beaten up by drunken thugs, or you loose a family member through such an event!! come back then and tell me its not hurting you. i wont smoke myself to death either, as their is STILL no evidence to support the claims it dose kill. and studys have shown smokers do live longer, not that the studys were in anyway accurate, well, they are as accurate as the the study of second hand smoke is a health riisk. and finally if i was to get any so called 'smoking related deseases' it wouldent change my views on this issue in any way shape or form, im not that shallow

I wish i knew? what i do know is that the reasons we are told smoking is so bad is based arround speculation and unreliable evidence! constant tests to link to any illness or desease to smoking have all failed, and their is no proven risk to health issues concernig second hand smoke. the only link they have is the same link you could use to connect food products, and other materials on our planet we encounter everyday and that is they all contains traces of carsnagens, and carsnagens are what are belived to cause cancers and illnesses in people. Dust produced from car break shoes contains carsnagens, why not protest to have them banned, we have the technology to produce ceramic breaks that dont produce nasty dust that polutes the air we breath? why dont they put money into transport that dosent burn fosil fule and produce leathel gasses that are pummped into the air? we have the technology for enviromentaly friendly transport allready, this would cut down on thousands of tonns of carsnagenic toxins, as oppose to the few tonne's smoking apparantly produces, surely making a bigger impact on global health. Foods we eat all contain nasty chemicals to add flavour, coulour, texture, and because the ammounts of toxins even carsnagens they contain are so tiny (much like tobacco smoke) the 'Healt officials' seem to think the levels they contain are not a concern to public health.everybody eats, not everybody smokes, why concentrate on the lesser problem? why dont we see labels on food products like,, "food consumption clogs the arteries and causes obesity, heart attacks and strokes" or "eating may cause death" ? This issue dose not get the kind of funding smoking gets to promoth its unhealty side effects. why? it could be that everybody will continue to eat reguardless, and they dont have an alternative product to profit from if they did stop this mass poisoning. Fat that is used to cook in 90% of resturants & take aways contains what health experts claim 'unhealthy levels of toxins' and you would only need to eat 2 meals a week cooked in this stuff to be putting your health at risk. Why are we allowing this rubbish to be sold to us, and not trying to stop this? think about it everybody eats, not everyone smokes! Milk, as i mentioned before has a higher risk factor than second hand smoke when consumed, The relative risk factor of lung cancer from MILK consumption is 2.4 - or 140 Per Cent More - or 8 Times the risk factor of Second Hand Smoke. but this is acceptable too!. The sun's rays are highly carsnagenic causing skin cancer and other illnesses, but we allow 'health & beauty' shops to use tanning equipment that produces the same risks to those who choose to use them, if the goverment was so concerned about our health wouldent you expect this kind of thing to be banned or regulated? i can find many more statistics, like this the more i find the more i belive their is a hidden agendas, why arent they tackling the other obviously more toxic problems with the same vigour and power as the anti-smoking campaigns, adverts and banns they are imposing on us? i would have thought if your going to fight a cause you would be better fighting one that has some hard evdence behind it.. the ammount of money that has gone into anti smokng campaigns,TV advertising, billboard's anti smoking products like , nicotene chewing gum, patches and the likes all sugests that their is a real danger from smoking, but no one has yet found any new evidence that one would expect would be needed, to have forced this kind of anti-smoking movement? its reverse advertising, to sell more products, they will get a huge return on the monies that its cost to go into this advertising and secures the tobacco industrys future. i would be as knieve has Cyclone to think that their is not a hidden agenda behind this anti-smoking movement their is just too much smoke surrounding it all. their is a lot of stigma behind smoking and its health risks and are all contriversal the anti-smokers will have you belive its a highly dangerous habbit, and that it is affecting others arround them, smokers will try to argue that as no evidence has been found to back any claim that smoking has not been linked directly to someones illness or death, and the risk is minimal to themselfs and non existant to those arround them. reguarding the all smoking issue i myself am sat in the middle, i can agree with bothe sides of the argument, however i am a smoker myself,its something i choose to do and will continue to do untill i decide otherwise. we all have a choice to eat what we like, drink what we like and drive what we like or even go to the salon and get a fake tan if we like, its called 'freedom of choice', do we really want the goverment controlling us more than they allready are? telling us what we can and cannot do? how do they do that sherlock? if they could they would have proven without doubt that smoking has a direct link to peoples illnesses, but they havent and its because of the possabilitys that the illness someone has could have easily been caused by 1 of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected to contribute – of which smoking can be one.

it was my idea of a joke ,,i was just trying to point out that their is a lot worse things to worry about than second hand smoke. as for the hidden agenda, its all about money,, i can go into it but i wont,,the info is on the net if you look

a lot of what you say makes sence, untill you look at the 'Model' evidence you are talking about. their is no foundation for this. the evidence gathering that you are talking about,, the data gathered is not true science, and is highly unnacurate having taking everything in to concideration, like heredetry conditions, metabolisms, imune systems and allergys ect: to mention but a few all have a part in this sort of data anaylisis, makeing the foundations of the modle you speak of a little 'wobbley' to say the least. besides if you look at the data you would see that they have prooven nothing to support any claims that smoking is of any relevence, people die, we all die, and studys show that people who smoke live longer than those who dont,,,where are your 'Model Foundations now!! -- SMOKING "VICTIMS" LIVE LONGER THAN NON-SMOKERS --, -- 60 % DIE "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 70 -- -- 45 % DIE "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 75 -- -- 17% DIE "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 85 -- -- FEWER THAN O.5 % OF SMOKERS DIE AT AGES LESS THAN 35, -- WHEREAS 8% OF NON-SMOKERS DIE AT AGES LESS THAN 35 -- i can find a lot of data myself that would give my arguments a good foundation but not based on fabricated truth's like the anti-smokers do! i havent claimed smoking is not harmfull or that is is!! what i am saying is their is no real evidence to support the arguments either way. it is my right to smoke ,it is not something that is illegal and it is not something thats is putting others at risk. we live in a democracy, and people who are trying to stop smoking on the baisis of 'Second Hand Smoke' they have no evidence whatsoever, and are trying to dictate and tell us how to live our lives. you only have to allow them to stop smoking , then it will be alchol and so forth,, did you know that 'Sunshine' is a class A Carsnogenic? what will they do next, stop us from going out doors,?

hahaha, its like i say you have been brain washed,,you dont kow if your comming or going m8, 1 min u agree their is no evidence to link smoking to cancer , the next, posting links to one of the biggest anti-smoking organisations on the planet, who have bias views like yourself. claiming ,, cancer reasearch site is full of fabricated lies about smoking how can they make such claims without any evidence? i ask you this, name just 1 of the 120,000 people who died last year, this year, or any year you care to choose? what about naming 1 of the several hundred they claim die as a result of passive smoking? Are when you done making yourself look silly?

i would love to be able to prove the points i make just like the anti-smokers would like to be able to prove the points they have. so for this reason this will be my last post here, no use me fighting a cause about something that dosent exist,,or dose it? is that so? hmmm not even the anti smoking organisations are bold enough to make such a claim, thats a good 1. your best yet by far. Fact or Fiction,,,hmm ill let the audience decide again, whats the point in me telling you different, you have allready convinced yourself that your right, it dosent matter what i say, it is good to see the 1000's dollers in anti-smoking advertising is working on some people and is not just a compleate waste of money. if only you knew the real reasons for the anti-smoking campaigne!! without evidence you dont know what the risks are experts have been trying to link smoking to illnesses for well over 40 years now and failed to find anything conclusive im assuming you dident mean me personally when you say why i should be able to force even a low risk on yourself. but the answer to this is easy,,noone is forceing anyone, are they? you can always walk away, tell the smoker that hes invading your space, whaterer,,but to say that your forced is a bit harsh!! it would be interesting to know if you drive Cyclone, as the ammount of toxins a car produces in a year is 10.000 x that of a 40 a day smoker, could produce in a life time. so using your methology anyone who drives is also forceing risks on you? but at a much higher risk! anyhow its time for me to take a fag break. it has been good to read your oppinions Cyclone, and everyon else's for that matter, i and wish you all the best with trying to quit the habit here is a link for those of you who think smoking is anything to worry about! beware this site contains FACTS!!!

so now your stating that in some way the poisonus gasses from vheicles dont mix with the air arround us? it is the same air in resturants as it is outside belive it or not? so it may not be as concentrated, and like you seem to enjoy pointing out ' 1 molecule could be enough to trigger the cancer that kills you' so to state that my point is flawed is somewhat crazy! why a scientist would make it up,,well due to not having any evidence or proof as you know dosent exist is the only information i need to know that it is indeed 'made up' if you do a little reasearch you will find the answers that go to explain why they have made this up. its not for the good of the people, that is a fact. just like the war with iraq wasent instigated for the good of the people. it is all to do with Money! as you are quick to point out on 2 occasions, 1 molecule could be enough to trigger the cancer that kills you, seen as 1000's of products we eat on daily basis and the ammount of gasses inhaled from car exaust, contain carsnagens dont you think that having a pop at smokers it a little harsh for their extreamly low contribution to it all? if not you could argue that that breathing in general is putting others at risk as they are forced to breath in your exhailed breath, that contains toxins? or that by break wind or burping contributes in some way? sounds silly hu? well the levels of toxins that are found in a cigarette are so small that it is almost the same in comparrison.

i agree, that anything floating about in the air is obviously going to be inhaled , so the "Passive Smokeing" eliment dose exist in that respect. however what i am saying dosent exist is any risk to your health from ,ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) what i mean by this is that, if every smoker stopped smoking, it would not make a dent on the ammount of chemicals floating around allready,and would not reduce anyones chance of contracting, any of the illnesses people seem to associate with smoking. as the ammount of chemicals produced by a ciggarette are tiny in comparison. Industrial organisations, Transport, Homes and Offices to name a few contribute to MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF TONNES of chemicals each year being put into the atmosphere. Dose smoking have any relative significance when compared to the 3-4 tonnes of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) produced arround the world each year? while it is true that Cigarettes contain formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, radioactive chemical, ethanol, arsenic and cyanide, among other toxic substances,the ammounts are so minute, that you would have to burn hundreds of thousands of cigaretts all in 1 go to produce enough of any given chemicle to be of any risk. for the least and most number of cigarettes required to reach their danger levels Hydroquinone would require 1,250 cigarettes Benzo(a)pyrene would require 222,000 cigarettes and Toluene would require 1,000,000 cigarettes Just because these chemicals are in ETS (environmental tobacco smoke), does not make ETS dangerous to others. as you have pointed out yourself their is no FACT's to back up any claim or that smoking has anything to do with cancer or passive smoking. cigarettes have some carsnogenic chemicals in them and for this reason its easy to assume that they are the cause of cancer in people, but seen as the ammounts of chemicals found are so minute and are well below any harmfull ammount it seems highly unlikely given all the other factors. all the reasearch carried out that link smoking with breast cancer, lung cancer, heart desiese and other 'smoking related!' desease is inconsistent and results in many cases their no relationship between the two whatsoever. the main reason that smokers are seen to be more at risk from health problems is that smokers immune systems can be weakend trough heavy or long term smoking, increasing the risks of infections and desiese or even cancer, prosumably. Coffee in moderation dosent pause any risk, but heavy consumption can lead to Pancreatic cancer. same can be said about most foods & drinks we consume. (allmost all) of the 4000 chemicles you find in a cigarette are to also be found in everyday foods and often in higher doses than cigarettes, but the ammount is still so tiny that according to health experts dose not pause any risk to the consumer. Did you know the relative risk factor of lung cancer from consuming MILK is 2.4 - or 140% More - or 8 Times the risk factor of Second Hand Smoke! milk is just 1 example and is found in a vast ammount of our food products. everyone is exposed to to the atmosphere we live in that is heavily poluted from Wars, Industrial organisations, Transport, Home and Office ammounting to MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF TONNES of chemicals each year to claim smoking has any relative significance when compared to the 3-4 tonnes of ETS produced arround the world each year is nit picking to say the least. im not saying that just because you have all of these bad chemicals in the air allready its in some way justifys smokers adding to it by smokeing. the point is that by stopping people smoking arround you would not make an ounce of difference to your health as you would still consume all the same nasty chemicals through food & drink consumption, and thats before you add the chemicals you would find in the air we breath caused by fule polution and thee likes. i agree it is nonsence! ,,i thought someone would pick up on this as smoking has never been proven to have killed anyone likewise can be said for passive smoking. just because a ciggarette contain thousands of chemicles of only a few of wich have been proved to have carsnogenic properties the ammounts are so tiny it would be highly unlikely that it had any connection with any desiese or illness. the reason that a lot of smokers have died in previous years with so called 'smoking related' deseases and illnesses compared to the ammount of non smokers who died is due to the fact that their was a hell of a lot more people who smoked when the studys were being carried out. remember smoking did used to be in fassion not so many years ago. recent studys in america acctually show that Tobacco consumption has been on the decline for the last 10 years, but death rates from 'allegedly associated' diseases are on the increase! not to mention all those life long smokers who live well above 80 years of age and show no sighns whatsoever of any illness that could be caused by them smoking. i appologise if i sound like i am being argumentative, i dont mean to be, im just tired of listening to this anti smoking bull s**t by brainwashed individuals who havent reasearched any of the allogations they throw arround concerning smoking, i myself being a smoker dont appreciate being made to feel bad or selfish for smoking a cigarette. and made to feel like i am in some way harming others by smoking. this compleate nonsence. if you do your reasearch and view the many arguments this topic has raised you would be supprised at the level of inconsistancies relating any illnesses to smoking. if you would like to educate yourself more about the myths sourrounding smoking rather than listening to someon elses bias anti-smoking views or false claims, the information is on the net for you to read if you care to look for it. here are a couple of interesting places to start www.davehitt.com Not 1 Death!!

i apologise Herbaliser for my assumption, i did miss read your last post as to why i was relating it to yourself when if i would have read it carefully i would have seen you was just genralising. i wasent Implying that periodically pop out for a pill while they're at work? what i was saying here is that those drugs are illegal and it hasent stoped people still doing them, weather or not they chose to do drugs at work or not, is irrelevent, to the point i was making and that If it is banned at work and no smoke room is available the smokers will simply go outside for a fag. the bans/restrictions just move the issue elswhere. i agree with your reasoning for why you think people smoke. its called addiction, but its not a big issue to me, im quite happy with who i am and what i do, the desire to quit is not something that bothers me personally. noone likes a quitter!!