Jump to content
Join Sheffield Forum for FREE and join in the discussion! ×
Join Sheffield Forum for FREE and join in the discussion!

blackydog

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,734

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by blackydog

  4. Posted

    2 hours ago, bassett one said:

    so nobody knows then if the big city of sheffield is to celebrate king charles coronation in may? no reports of a big event in norfolk park? no big screens in town? we at lowedges will do small events and i take it other areas will do likewise .

    Can't see much to celebrate. Just another opportunity for blinkered people to show their adoration to someone who is where he is, by accident of birth.

    I shall be supporting Republic activities in the background. Keeping well away from the lickspittles and fawners.

    The TV will be off for all that cringeworthy week.

     

    I might actually get some eggs, and go and throw them at the odious Nicholas Witchell, to cheer me up a bit.

  5. Posted

    13 hours ago, cressida said:

    Getting there I hope,  longcovid - less energy is stopping me going out,  I used to be out every day,  maybe it's lack of fresh air.

    Not one to get dramatic, but I wonder if that's what I have. I just cannot seem to find much sustaining energy. I want to sleep more than I have ever done, and I cannot shake cold symptoms. Just put it done to the time of year.

  6. Posted

    1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said:

    I assume with electric cars technology will get to the point where they are viable alternatives.

    I wouldn't argue with that, but getting there has a huge cost, financially and environmentally, mainly in obtaining the lithium (and cobalt) required for the batteries. Lithium is also a finite resource.

    The lithium batteries used in cars have a limited lifespan but can be used afterwards, where their reduced efficiency is less critical, in electrical storage facilities. Beyond that though, once lithium needs to be recycled, it is a hazardous procedure. 

    The road to reducing dependence on fossil fuels is not a particularly scenic one. 

  7. Posted

    4 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

    Indeed, its likely more a inspiration for new developments rather than existing.

     

    For some reason Right Said Fred and Katie Hopkins have linked it with 6 bus gates in Oxford and are proclaiming it the end of the world.

    I no longer have to drive into work very often (when I do it is Lincoln) but I sometimes see the number of people driving into work and think, what chance have we got of reaching global temperature limit targets, when this goes on worldwide everyday.  So I suppose in theory the aim is to be applauded. 

    However, the options are crap. Trains are expensive and unreliable (and dirty). Bus services (even more so recently) are driven by profit, and are going to be forced to invest in the latest technology at high cost.

     

    Electric cars that may be exempt from restrictions are extremely expensive, don't have a satisfactory infrastructure and when it comes to the global warming issue are very polluting in their manufacture.

     

     

  8. Posted

    3 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

    Its just an aspiration for most services to be within a 15 minute walk.

     

    Thats it.

     

    It doesnt involve mind control, the Jewish Lizards, the Rothschilds, or anything else.

    Well yeah, but its an impossible fantasy.

    At an average walking speed of 4mph (or less), your facilities would need to be within a 1 mile radius.

    Many of us don't live that near to any of the facilities I mentioned above. 

  9. Posted

    Apologies this might go on a bit but bear with me.

    I have been trying to understand what it will actually mean. I have read most of the "waffle" in the link. It is waffle, it could be in better language and far less repetitive.

     

    This plan does not just include Sheffield although we appear to be part of an initial trial.

    I have found information from this source.

    https://www.smarttransport.org.uk/insight-and-policy/latest-insight-and-policy/what-is-a-15-minute-neighbourhood#:~:text=The 15-minute neighbourhood serves,diverse%2C inclusive and economically vibrant.

     

    This is a passage from that source.

     

    "Transport is at its heart given the fundamental principles rely on active travel and good public transport to give residents access to all essential amenities without making long journeys by car.

    Instead of sucking workers, shoppers and students into congested city centres, the 15-minute approach devolves the provision of day-to-day needs to a neighbourhood, so nobody needs to travel more than 15 minutes to earn a living, buy food, see a doctor and educate their children.

     

    The aim is to create a dense interconnected mesh of self-sufficient urban villages or ‘complete communities’, reducing car use and, with it, the need for space to accommodate and park private cars, leaving more space for humans."

     

    Reading that, there is no doubt that private cars are very much seen to be the enemy.

    Public transport is at the heart. 

    All reasonable requirements should be within a (non car) journey of 15 mins.

     

    Looking at it from a real word aspect.

    Few of us will work with a 15 minute non car journey so it will be public transport then to get to work. Public transport which the local authorities seemingly have little control over, other than to make charges to polluting forms of PT (public transport).

     

    How many new doctors surgeries will be required for a 15 minute non car journey, not to mention schools, hospitals, libraries even pubs and restaurants.

     

    this is my understanding of the subject, happy to be corrected.

     

    It seems to want to take us back to a tribal way of living, with the conflict potentially associated with that.

     

    I have tried to read the previous 16 pages so as not to repeat any previous points, but the bickering just put me off.

     

     

  11. Posted

    On 08/01/2023 at 09:39, crookesey said:

    ‘He’s just a spoilt kid’, maybe losing his mother when he most needed her, coupled with not having a definitive father to fall back on has troubled one brother more than the other. They can throw money and titles at him all they want, I just wonder if he ever felt any love after his mother’s death.

     

    I can see him topping himself and his ‘family members’ breathing a sigh of relief, some ‘spoilt kid’ then. If any of you guys think that I’ve changed my mind, I’ve never  liked being thought of as one of the shouting and pointing brigade.

    By deliberately crashing his car in a Paris underpass?

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, trastrick said:

    Nothing wrong with a democracy changing their Head of State, but putting a politician in it’s place is just substituting one bunch of flawed human beings for t’ other!

     

    You could finish up with a Boris, or God help you, a Trump!  :)

    Both of whom have been selected, seen for what they are and dismissed.  

  15. Posted

    14 minutes ago, trastrick said:

    All the same you got to credit the ones that stayed in the Royal Household (I would call it a prison) and spent their lives going through the required rigmarole every day.

     

    I'm not sure just how "luxurious" a life like that would be, even if I didn't have to pay for it!

     

    There are many arguments pro and against the royals themselves. I find they are a corrupt and secretive organisation, of which self preservation is the utmost goal. That is my view of the incumbents.

     

    However, we also have the different (but related)  argument of monarchy and hereditary succession. Whatever you think of the current mob, put that aside and ask yourself - is this a proper and correct way to select a Head of State?  Is it good for the country, indeed is it good for the person?

    If you accept monarchy but are an atheist, how do you reconcile having a Head of State chosen by God?

     

    Have they shown throughout modern history, that the current method of choosing a Head of State has been successful? I think not.

     

     

  16. Posted

    6 hours ago, trastrick said:

    There were those who sympathized with Harry, and before that, his mother, Diane, and even before that, Edward V111, who just wanted to escape the confines of the Royal family and the inability to live "a normal life".

     

     

    Not so. Edward VIII wanted to marry that Simpson trollop and remain king. However he was aware that he would not get government support to marry a (still married) divorcee, so abdicated.

     

    More recently, Liz2 gave permission for Charlie to marry divorcee (choosing my words carefully here) Camilla Shand.

     

    Not a lot was different really except the times. Both kings reportedly had affairs with married women, before their accession to king. One got approval the other didn't.

     

     

     

  17. Posted

    You are only allowed to do 15.5 mph on a motor assisted bike before the motor cuts off. You can easily do more then 30 mph on a pushbike, plus any age group can ride one tax / insurance free. 

    An legal electric scooter can also do 15.5 mph. On a decent pedal only scooter, I would think that speed was easily attainable, plus any age group can ride one tax / insurance free. 

     

    Where is the problem with the electric version?

     

  18. Posted

    9 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

    Charles is not king in theory, that is a fact. Your support  or choice is irrelevant.

    I have explained to you before why I support the monarchy, not blind support as I have given you valid facts.

    You will not change my mind and  you will not change your mind.

    If you examined my reasons with an open mind you may understand others support

    As I remember you were completely unaware of many aspects of the royal families behaviour, and correctly, I called you out on it. Including your ignorance of the traitor king and his collaboration with the nazis. 

    If your support isn't quite blind, it is certainly from an uninformed position.

     

    Oh and whatever slant you put on it, he or any other will never be king in my eyes. 

  19. Posted

    6 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

    Charles is your king whether you like it or not.

    The majority of people support the monarchy.

    And also whether he is any good at it or not.

    He may in theory be the king, but neither did I choose him or support him.  

     

    Support for the monarchy is dropping. Younger people largely don't care either way.

     

    The only thing I hate more than royalty, is their choice blind supporters. 

     

    I have had many arguments with you about royalty, and as I have said before, you are largely ignorant of their past antics, and don't make any effort to find out, and as such are not really worthy of discussion with.

     

    I won't change your mind, because it is not open to change.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  20. Posted

    9 hours ago, cuttsie said:

    To day , bottom of the Moor near where all the odd folk hang  out .

    Well I was walking past when a bloke collapsed , He was a dishevelled bloke , soiled clothes , A months growth on chin , bobble hat askew on head .

     

    Any way he keeled over ,fell into the gutter , by gutter I mean just that as on that section of Moor foot the pavement falls into a  stone sets gutter .

     

    I saw him fall , It was a slow fall ,as though he was trying his best not to but in the end he lost and ended up in the water .

    I walked over (no rush in me these days ) and attempted to help him up but he was to heavy with all his clobber on so I asked a few passers by to help me .

    A few walked past , muttering "serves him right " or "lieve  him where he his " and so on ,  

    Then I asked a well dressed couple , plumb in gob type to gi me a lift , they did ,  We got him standing  but he was un steady on his feet so we borrowed a chair from the outdoor cafe and sat him down , I asked the lass for a cup of tea for him ,she refused payment and obliged .

     

    The thing that got me was the folk that just walked past , Set me thinking , Has society decided that some folk are not worth the trouble , The comments "serves him right " and so on .  

    I mean people just assume the worse , go on appearance , he must be drunk or a druggie and so on without kowing . I still don't know why the bloke keeled over but just felt glad that up to now I am not down and out in Sheffield .  

    Did he try to nip you for some change when he came round? 😁 

  22. Posted

    On 30/12/2022 at 01:21, Tipstaff said:

    I certainly wouldn't vote for Britain to become a republic. The Royal Family have their faults, yes, they're human, but I don't think that this country of ours would be any better off with an alternative constitution.

    In my humble opinion, there are enough internal wrangling's with all the devolved power in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without creating a near civil war over the issue, which I'm sure some would relish?!

     

    Give His Majesty The King the right to use his experience and leave the Royal Family to do their work, please.

    He might be your majesty but he's not mine, or many others. They belong in a different time, and its time now for it to end. 

    Republic.

  23. Posted

    13 hours ago, Zinger549 said:

    Most people don't know the whole story about Harry and Meaghan but they just believe what read in the papers.  Prince Andrew was friends with Epstein, went to his islands and paid someone 12m. He also did that car crash interview on the BBC.

    Most people don't know about a lot of what goes on in the monarchy, and they're to lazy to find out or don't want to know.

  25. Posted

    On 20/12/2022 at 22:55, The_DADDY said:

    All the negativity surrounding the royals these days makes me think, would we be better off doing away with the monarchy?

    Not like the French did but a vote across the nation and commonwealth to see of a monarchy is right for the 21st century?

    How would you vote?

    Hereditary succession is wrong full stop. No-one can be guaranteed suitable to be Head of State based on their parentage, plus it prevents someone who has strong talent for it, ever being considered. 

    Plus the ones we have (including the late queen) ARE corrupt. Check out royal consent (not assent) for yourselves.

    I'd end it tomorrow.

     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Close   I accept