Council tree felling...

[Eamonn Ward 10]

Greens got about 9000 more votes than UKIP in 2016 citywide. Jonathan Harston's stats site the best place for past results in detail plus analysis. http://mdfs.net/Docs/Sheffield/Election/2016/

[smiggs 10]

debatable - in some wards the greens got more votes than the lib dems last time round. So if the numbers held up a vote for lib-dem in those wards is a waste, because they can't win.

 

You can tell if you are in a Lib Dem or Green target ward by the sheer number of leaflets you receive from them and Labour. If you ain't in a target ward you for an opposition party you probably just get 1 or 2 leaflets from Labour. If you're not in a Green or Lib Dem target just vote for the party/candidate who you feel is best as realistically unless there's a surprise surge you'll probably end up with the incumbent party anyway.

[Dronfieldman 10]

Have just discovered the real reason 17,500 trees are being removed in Sheffield (with the same thing going on in some other cities). It seems it's to allow the roll-out of 5G mobile phone technology. 5G signals get blocked by the foliage on trees. So as the Government and the Council want the 5G signals to get into people's houses, they need to cut down trees in streets where there are houses. A University of Surrey / Telefonica report (section 3.1) states that for 5G to work 100%, it is necessary for 100% of trees to be removed. Of course, anyone who actually believed that 17,500 trees had suddenly become diseased (as per the official explanation) must be living in la-la land.

 

As trees provide oxygen for the air and filter out CO2 from the air, this tree removal will, naturally, mean the atmosphere will become more polluted and the greenhouse effect and asthma problems will be exacerbated.

[paula4sheff 10]

So yes, trees in Sheffield.

 

http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/10/nobody-believes-gateshead-councils-smoke-screen-denial-5g-street-lights-7455965/

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5409921/Residents-enduring-stillbirths-street-lamps.html

 

Now you might not immediatly see the relevance, other than it being another insane trip through the average conspiracy theorist brain pan. However there is a very strong feeling that the reason all the trees in Sheffield are being cut down is to make way for "the 5G" whatever that is.... I've seen some insanity before but this one really takes the biscuit so - be ready for them lol

 

Back on the 12th April we were warned......

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2018 at 19:11 ----------

 

Have just discovered the real reason 17,500 trees are being removed in Sheffield (with the same thing going on in some other cities). It seems it's to allow the roll-out of 5G mobile phone technology. 5G signals get blocked by the foliage on trees. So as the Government and the Council want the 5G signals to get into people's houses, they need to cut down trees in streets where there are houses. A University of Surrey / Telefonica report (section 3.1) states that for 5G to work 100%, it is necessary for 100% of trees to be removed. Of course, anyone who actually believed that 17,500 trees had suddenly become diseased (as per the official explanation) must be living in la-la land.

 

As trees provide oxygen for the air and filter out CO2 from the air, this tree removal will, naturally, mean the atmosphere will become more polluted and the greenhouse effect and asthma problems will be exacerbated.

 

....so what took you so long to arrive?!

[lectrolove 10]

Have just discovered the real reason 17,500 trees are being removed in Sheffield (with the same thing going on in some other cities). It seems it's to allow the roll-out of 5G mobile phone technology. 5G signals get blocked by the foliage on trees. So as the Government and the Council want the 5G signals to get into people's houses, they need to cut down trees in streets where there are houses. A University of Surrey / Telefonica report (section 3.1) states that for 5G to work 100%, it is necessary for 100% of trees to be removed. Of course, anyone who actually believed that 17,500 trees had suddenly become diseased (as per the official explanation) must be living in la-la land.

 

 

This is of course nonsense but I'm quite glad it's been posted, should liven up the thread!

[Eater Sundae 12]

Have just discovered the real reason 17,500 trees are being removed in Sheffield (with the same thing going on in some other cities). It seems it's to allow the roll-out of 5G mobile phone technology. 5G signals get blocked by the foliage on trees. So as the Government and the Council want the 5G signals to get into people's houses, they need to cut down trees in streets where there are houses. A University of Surrey / Telefonica report (section 3.1) states that for 5G to work 100%, it is necessary for 100% of trees to be removed. Of course, anyone who actually believed that 17,500 trees had suddenly become diseased (as per the official explanation) must be living in la-la land.

 

As trees provide oxygen for the air and filter out CO2 from the air, this tree removal will, naturally, mean the atmosphere will become more polluted and the greenhouse effect and asthma problems will be exacerbated.

 

Don’t worry about the CO2, just get the face mask upgrade to your tinfoil hat.

[Longcol 594]

Back on the 12th April we were warned......!

 

29 March actually.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11839423&postcount=1182

[paula4sheff 10]

29 March actually.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11839423&postcount=1182

 

Apologies!

[Longcol 594]

Don’t worry about the CO2, just get the face mask upgrade to your tinfoil hat.

 

Looks like STAG have joined the tinfoil hat brigade.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/392913244219104/permalink/947943108716112/

 

RT was always the place to go for our 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[alsatian 10]

I'm not fan of RT either but all it says is he's doing a piece for them. No tinfoil hat there. Any coverage they can get out is better than none, despite the platform.

[Cyclone 10]

As someone pointed out previously, only 1/3rd of the seats are up for election, so whilst hopefully many will change hands, it won't be enough to change the majority.

[nightrider 13]

As someone pointed out previously, only 1/3rd of the seats are up for election, so whilst hopefully many will change hands, it won't be enough to change the majority.

 

The council may take the result as an indication of the electorates feelings though - so if labour retain all their seats, they may conclude this is approval to continue with the fellings.