Native lad

Recently, I started a thread entitled "Should fertility treatments continue to be available on the NHS?"; this was because every sector of public services faces tough decisions and cut-backs, with serious consequences, and it is important that limited public resources are used wisely and that expenses are prioritised in an appropriate manner. With an election looming, I considered it reasonable to expect that such an issue should be discussed. Before two days had passed, it vanished without explanation. As I had never seen that happen before, I restarted the thread. Four days later (today), the thread vanished again. Nine hours and twenty minutes after the replacement thread vanished, I received a PM from moderator Pete, confirming that moderator/s had removed the threads. Pete couldn't explain why the threads were removed, as he didn't remove them. He didn't know of the reasons for their removal either, but guessed that there could have been multiple objections to the threads. This is odd indeed, as other threads on this forum get very heated and participants often stray some way off topic, but such problems didn't occur on these threads to the extent they do on others. With one exception - directed at me - I don't recall anyone actually being mean or nasty. So, in summary, are forum users being censored? If so, is it being done in an open, reasonable, consistent, fair and just manner?

Lib' Dem's appear to like trees, if you can believe the spin: "The Liberal Democrats are proposing an increase in the number of trees planted every year to 700,000- 750,000 - equivalent to the number of children born in England and Wales each year. This is part of a Nature Act that is being drawn up for the Lib Dem 2015 manifesto. This includes targets for clean air and water, and a plan to safeguard natural resources that are being harvested at unsustainable levels." http://www.libdems.org.uk/lib_dems_will_plant_a_tree_for_every_baby_born However, from personal experience of dealing with both Lid' Dem' & Labour councillors, I'd say none of them can be trusted with regard to arboricultural matters, regardless of how well meaning they are or intend to be: they just don't know enough about arboricultural matters to make informed decisions, or criticise the decisions and policies of others. As for other political parties, I'm not well enough informed to comment, but I see no reason to suspect that they are any different. All said, the Lib' Dem's did produce Sheffield's current strategy for green and open spaces: "Sheffield's Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010 - 2030", which you can download as a PDF, from the council's website, using the following link: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/green-and-open-space-strategy.html The "Trees and woodland Strategy" referred to in the policy document has never materialised. It should be noted that, in an e-mail dated 5 Apr 2014 (sent at 00:34), Councillor Jack Scott (Labour) made the following comments, while Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene: “We do not presently have a strategy solely for trees. My view is tat this wouldn’t be very helpful given they are an intrinsic part of the broader environment and ecology. However, I am confident that we have adopted very good practice in this area.” This is contrary to the recommendations of the Trees in Towns 2 report which the Labour government commissioned (published in 2008 ): Excerpts from the report "Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management" (published 2008.), published by the Department for Communities and Local Government: "In many respects, the existence of a relevant [tree] strategy document is the most significant indicator of a planned approach to management..." (p. 158.) "Those LAs that have not got an existing TREE STRATEGY and are not in the process of developing one, need to make this an immediate priority..." …"Even the existence of a specific tree strategy does not always imply that this is an appropriate document to drive the LA’s tree programme. How the strategy was developed and what detailed policies and plans it contains will determine this." (p. 192) The role of Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene is a very important position within the council. It involves responsibility for the oversight of a range of council services that have responsibility for trees. Any person in this role should ensure that the council is compliant with international, national, regional and local policies and commitments and that these policies and commitments are adequate to comply with international and national laws. For the casual reader the Trees in Towns 2 document is, perhaps, a largely boring document. However, the final section of the document - pages 487 to 644 - consists of 12 case studies (Appendix 14), provided as local authority examples of best practice. The document is substantial, with a hefty price tag. However, it can be purchased for a fraction of the standard price at: http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-johnston/trees-in-towns-ii/paperback/product-18906201.html An Executive Summary is available to available to download (as a free PDF document): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/treesintownsii.pdf Any local authority, or agent acting on behalf of a local authority (LA), and claiming to act in accordance with current best practice guidance and recommendations will be doing their best to achieve the recommendations outlined in the Trees in Towns 2 publication. At the NAGOYA UN BIODIVERSITY SUMMIT in October 2010, 192 countries and the European Union agreed to an ambitious conservation plan to protect global biodiversity. This new ‘Strategic Plan’ provides a flexible framework for all 193 Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity to drive action on biodiversity by all Parties. It established a new global vision for biodiversity – a world of “living in harmony with nature” where: • ‘By 2050, biodiversity is VALUED, conserved, restored and wisely used, MAINTAINING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.’ Parties also agreed a shorter term ambition to: • ‘ TAKE EFFECTIVE AND URGENT ACTION to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet‘s variety of life, and contributing to human wellbeing, and poverty eradication..‘ To deliver this ambition, Parties agreed on a set of strategic goals and targets (THE ‘AICHI’ TARGETS) to drive action on biodiversity. These are set out in Annex B.” https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69446/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020-111111.pdf For further comment, see the following threads: "What is your opinion on Amey and their attitude to trees?" "HEELEY CITY FARM: Sheffield City Council propose removal of trees!" There is also more information on the Stocksbridge Community Forum. https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/contribute-website

You have already made that point. Perhaps payment in kind is considered to be of even greater value, in exceptional cases.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32487874 http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=27312 Excerpt from the latter: "World leaders meeting at the Vatican for a conference on climate change have issued a final statement today*, declaring that "human-induced climate change is a scientific reality" and "its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity." The statement says that humans have the technological and financial means, and the know-how, to combat human-induced climate change, while at the same time eliminating global poverty. The conference, entitled 'Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Humanity' was organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, SDSN and Religions for Peace." The link also provides the full text of the Final Declaration from the conference: "Declaration of Religious Leaders, Political Leaders, Business Leaders, Scientists and Development Practitioners" . *28th of April, 2015.

The Bishops that wrote this letter are not in business, nor are they paid a wage or salary.

They probably do that due to the content of the Gospels and being Christian.

Whereabouts exactly was this? Do you have an OS grid reference?

The letter can be viewed at the link below. A PDF of the Bishops' letter there is also there, available for download (available in English and Welsh). http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/Featured/General-Election-2015/Election-Letter The contents of the letter are arranged in sections, as follows: Introduction; Respecting Life; Supporting Marriage and Family Life; Alleviating Poverty; Educating for the good of all; Building Communities: - Europe; - The Voluntary Sector; - Living Wage and the Dignity of Human Work; - Asylum and Immigration; - Religious Freedom; Caring for the World: - Overseas Aid and Development; - Climate Change and Sustainable Development; Conclusion. Excerpt: "...Whom you vote for is a matter for you alone. Our aim is to suggest how you might approach this important question in May 2015 and to suggest some key issues for your reflection as you make your own decision." This thread invites respectful, polite, considered, informed comment on content of the Bishop's letter to the people of England and Wales, from all visitors, regardless of whether or not they are Christian. Please refrain from posting comment if you do not feel able to refrain from flaming ("sending angry, rude, vulgar messages directed at a person or persons privately or to an online group") or harassment ("repeatedly sending messages that are considered rude, offensive, insulting, nasty, or mean."). Please ensure that you give an explanation for your opinion/s. Thanks.

It was always going to be Island of the Blue Dolphins or some Enid Blyton book, wasn't it? ...Guaranteed! The former is certainly a very good read, not least because it is based on things that really happened. By the way, it is written by Scott O'Dell, author of The King's Fifth: the book that inspired the children's television series Mysterious Cities of Gold. http://www.scottodell.com/Pages/Biography.aspx

Just thought I'd mention my personal experience of the Jobcentre. The last time I visited was back in 2010, to use their computerised job search facilities - you know, where you select from various drop down menus to search locally, nationally or internationally for work. As usual, you could print out details of any job you were interested in, but if you wanted contact details for the employer, the Jobcentre were not prepared to let you have them unless you had a successful claim for Jobseeker's Allowance. In essence, even if you were unemployed, they would not recognise you as such without a successful claim (you were classed as "non-employed"). Furthermore, if you were unemployed as a result of being sacked, or quitting a job, your claim would be unsuccessful. In which case, you were not allowed to claim for several months after the initial claim had been unsuccessful (six, I think). This final point is worth remembering when applying for work. If you have a successful claim, you have agreed to accept any work that is offered to you, and must take it or lose access to the allowance. After six months of claiming, they used to offer you access to training/education, or insist you join a "Job Club" (the sort of thing that David Walliams takes the Mickey out of). If you selected the former - having been permitted to select from a very limited range of limited options placed before you - you were expected to continue applying for jobs and quit your education or training should you be offered a job, even if that job was just minimum wage work, regardless of your progress with the education/training. I wonder how much public money has been frittered away in this manner? (contains vulgar language) Furthermore, if you have an unscrupulous employer that neglects his responsibilities and statutory duties, you are expected to have done everything reasonably practicable to have sorted these problems out with the employer prior to quitting. The Jobcentre will expect YOU to provide evidence of everything you and your employer did or didn't do, if you want any hope of having a successful claim. This is the case even if it was trying to address such problems that got you fired! There was a time when staff at the jobcentre would have been authorised, able and willing to give you this kind of advice. However, when I visited, in 2010, things had changed. NONE of the staff were allowed, able or willing to help with advice or queries. When I asked why, I was told that they no longer offer that service in person and are not trained to do so. Instead, I was directed to a row of telephones strung out along a wall and told that I could use a telephone to call an advisor who would be authorised, able and willing to answer my questions. Another problem with the Jobcentre is that they do not have a professional careers advisor to assist with careers advice. They will not suggest ways that you can improve your education or training, how to find out about such, or give information on access to funding. Back in 2003, or there about, I had a JSA claim. I found myself work. When I went to my final meeting at the Jobcentre, the official asked whether I would mind if he claimed that he had found me the job. I asked why he thought I should agree to that. He said that all the staff doing his kind of work were issued with a target they were expected to meet each week: they had to get so many people in to work each week, or there was increased likelihood of them losing their jobs. I was shocked, to say the least, as this represents an incentive to push people in to jobs for which they are not well suited. In turn, this increases the likelihood of upsetting both employers and jobseekers, and significantly increases the likelihood that the claimant will have another claim in a few months time. I agreed to the man's request, only because he had a severe disability. It makes you wonder just how many ingenious ways there are for the government to ensure statistics support their political agendas.

Best of all, the story continues! The original series was officially released on DVD in the UK back in 2009 ( http://80scartoons.co.uk/ ran an online petition to get a DVD release. By June 2006, there were over 5,950 signatures, of people from all around the world!). Surprisingly, the quality of the product shows precious little improvement on the fan copies that were circulating prior to release - highlighting the magnitude of Tim Skutt's talent. Since 2009, a second and third series have been commissioned. In the UK, as I understand it, series 2 first aired in November 2013, on Kix TV (Freesat channel 606). Series 2 was released in the UK on DVD in February 2014; it picks up with all the original main characters we loved from the original series going in search of another city of gold...in China! http://www.jedisparadise.co.uk/3/Mysterious_Cities_of_Gold.htm http://home.comcast.net/~skutt/mcog.html http://mcog.32x.de/ https://www.kixtv.co.uk/news-and-reviews/article.aspx?articleid=1622&title=Mysterious-Cities-of-Gold-Coming-this-November&page=1#comments

Please refer to post #90 (page 5). Well, I've done all I'm prepared to do to help people here. ...As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Good luck to everyone in their personal quests for greater education, knowledge, understanding and tolerance.

Academic references please. What you have done here is cherry pick from the historical record to support your own case. BTW, the comment to which you refer related to the situation before the conversion of Constantine (and, with it, Roman acceptance of Christianity). Intolerance, lack of compassion, greed and selfishness have been universal traits of all mankind since the earliest years of human existence. ...They are apparent in postings on this thread too.

For Christians today, homosexuality is tolerated, but not acknowledged as being compatible with achieving maximum spiritual development, which is the overall aim of Christianity, to put it most simply. With regard to your other comments, I refer you back to may comments in post #74 (page 4). You would benefit from studying history with a view to identifying how the freedoms you currently enjoy initiated, established and developed.

Please refer to post #74 (page 4). The books of the Old Testament (OT) are a record of Jewish history and represent a record of memory, experience and understanding of their relationship with God, since the dawn of existence. It is also worth remembering that, to both the Jews and Christians, the primary purpose (and sole purpose, with regard to the latter) of the OT is to serve as an aid to spiritual development, through combination with prayer and reflection. Now you should see the value of the comments I made in Post #90 (page 5).