ECCOnoob

No. That's not what I asked you. STOP with the cherry picking. What was the daily mail article you have taken the figures from as stated in your post #45 less than a hour ago?

This article Anna B?? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5810455/Number-people-living-poverty-line-UK-maybe-half-thought-official-figures-show.html The one whose headline states ..."Office for National Statistics report casts doubt on the extent of poverty..." The one that concludes with the following quote: Yesterday academic and researcher into the family Patricia Morgan said: ‘A large number of people are working unofficially and are unlikely to declare their incomes. There are many single mothers who are in fact supported by partners, but will be reluctant to discuss it because they wish to keep their benefits. ‘All this is ignored by the poverty lobby. Spreading the idea there are very high levels of poverty is their business.' Why didn't you set that important detail out in your OP. Would have been pretty helpful to give some context to the thread.

To clarify, I mean that internet access is available in many places for free in libraries, community centres, cafes, bars, public transport If a family is really that hard up that they dont have domestic internet then even the school itself will have a duty to offer access when required.

Hang on. Lets be absolutely clear here. What you are saying is that the absolute poorest 10% of households still have a disposable amount of just under £100 per week AFTER paying out for housing, food and utilities. That's "poverty" is it???? As I say before. Proverty isn't a problem in this county. People having realistic expections is. ---------- Post added 28-07-2018 at 19:25 ---------- Yes they do, but internet is available for free in dozens and dozens of locations in every town and city. Even for home supplied internet its still from merely £10-20 a month. (that would equate to less than 3% of that monthly disposable income) As for a car I would wholly disagree. Why exactly has that suddenly become an essential item? Plenty of families dont have one - particuarly in areas of high density population. Even less families had them 30 years ago.

If that's all my wages allowed me to "dispose" each year than I would have to learn to live with it - just like my parents did and generations before had. £5k a year is more than £400 "disposable" money a month. Yes its a small amount and yes its gonna be tough to live off - but certainly not impossible. Biggest problem these days is far too many people with entitlement syndrome. Luxuries being treated as essentials. Goods and services seen by our former generation as special treats now bought by the masses on an regular basis. Too much easy credit available to those with no collateral and an unrealistic attitude of expecting to have what they want when they want it without any thought as to the consequences. The absolute poorest 10% of households still have over £400 a month left over after housing costs and yet people laughingly definie it as "proverty" Dont know the meaning of the word. There are places in the world where their entire monthy income would be half that amount, let alone disposable money. We dont have a poverty problem in this country. We have people who cant manage realistic expectations.

Oh right, so presumably you have exactly the same condescending attitude towards those women who choose to become fashion models, poster girls, display promoters, erotic models and porn actors. You do know there is a whole industry a men doing the same thing too. Is that acceptable in your world? What exactly do you have a problem with? Why cant you just accept that some women who have the confidence, looks and worked hard to get a suitable body figure and size are choosing to use it to make themselves legitimate and legal money and for those fortunate few even make a very good career out of it. This is not a new story. The world of burlesuqe, striptease, naughty pictures and glamour photography has been around for centruries. The company under discussion is not some seedy back alley mob ruled fleapit. Its a branch of a global entertainment company whose uk divison alone made 6.3 million in sales at the last accounts. If YOU dont like it as an "entertainment" then YOU dont have to participate but lets not all turn into Victorian era prudes. Sex sells. We all do it. "full humans" as you aptly describe, all have a default setting to be attracted visually and often physically to another type of full human. This form of entertainment (as so many others - including television) is stimulating that feeling. We like it and buy into it.

A chance for what? He is supposed to be an elected member of parliament representing the people and paid for by the people. He knows full well that such role comes with great responsibility including having every inch of your past, present and future behaviour, words, history and day to day life under constant observation, speculation, criticism and review. That includes so called 'regrettable behaviour' and vile written words that he may or may not have done in the past (.....which in any event was done when he was a grown adult in his 20s running a business, sitting on voluntary committees and and old enough to know better). Did he really think people would not take a look and it come back to bite him on the backside. Here he is now with his pathetic attempts to gain sympathy by crying about "being treated as a criminal by the party", making some empty gesture of going independent and most recently seemingly finding god. This chump doesn't just play the victim card he has a whole deck. He blew it. He had his chance. Corbyn's cult blew it. So desprate were they to get a momentum backed candidate in place - they failed to do the first simple check. Get dirt digging to see what the opposition might drag up and use against you. Politics 101.

The report from shelter actually says that there are 33,000 in temporary accommodation not the same as street homeless. It also shows that the highest proportion in fact 60% are in London - which begs the question - why the hell are they are all down there? Move somewhere cheaper. Think it should also be mentioned the stats show that one of lowest numbers of homelessness was recorded in Yorkshire and Humberside. Even better news for our region is that the report also shows that the North East actually shows a DECREASE in the number of "working homeless" since 2013. Stats are great when you give full facts and context as oppose merely the attention grabbing headline arn't they.

You had better remember this post next time you are bigging up Compo Corbyn or those all so important union reps or those all so important civil servants you claim are looking after the people. Lets just have one more reminder My work here is done. You have well and truely shown your clear contempt towards anyone who dares to be ambitious and earn an above average wage. You keep on with that race to the bottom you are pushing for. See where that gets you. ---------- Post added 23-07-2018 at 00:13 ---------- Its not beyond the realms of possibility for a minimum wage worker to have little or no outgoings compared to someone on a high salary but high expenses. There can be people still living at home who little or no outgoings and can take their times picking and choosing a job with a salary that suits. There can be recent graduates still living on their loans who can be selective of roles that come up. There can be mid-career changers who despite a modest income still manage to keep themselves ticking over and have a sum gradually stacking up in the bank. On the other hand there can be a high level manager or director who is suddenly losing their job and has a big house, cars, children and other big outgoings to pay for. Rich OR Poor, how you spend your earnings is entirely up to an individual. There is no deafult setting that says high earner = money in the bank low earner = nothing for a rainy day. Life is clearly not like that. You can have a executive who blows the lot as soon as he gets his paycheck or you could have a minimum wage earner living frugally and keeping a nest egg in an ISA. It could just be as much the other way round. The primary point I have been making still remains.

There is a room full of wind bags earning 3x the average salary who could bring down the entire country. There is one huge useless lump of lard earning a salary just behind said prime minister whose inaction and weakness could do more damage to this country than anything the bankers did. There are currently three trade union chiefs all earning more than the PM and dozens more earning + £100k despite them supposedly representing those downtrodden workers. There are thousands of civil servants, quango chiefs and layers of government organisation management and even GPs who earn more than the PM or are on six figure salaries. Wonder if you have the same level of bile against them. On and on and on and on you keep beating that drum....

Wow, talk about inverse snobbery. Once again, ignore the details of the post , ignore the bigger picture and just beat that old drum. Prey tell, how much exactly do you think should be paid to a chief executive of a national organisation which has over 8000 employees and a £301million budget??? How does the charity sector CEOs - which by recent survey stats show the majority of receiving less than £100k a year - compare with CEOs in other simiar sized organisations eh?? How do those CEOs renumerations and responsibilities compare to those all those thousands of executive level civil servants or NHS clinical leaders or Health Trust Managers, those Chief Consultants or even them down to earth working class salt of the earth unionised dahling tube drivers?? Equal pay levels for equal types of jobs the masses scream *cough*, except if you are some suited type deemed to earn a higher than average wage then it doesn't count. In that case you are tarred as just some greedy scumbag corporate monster who doesn't deserve it. Oh one final though for you. 43% of that £190k is whipped away in tax and national insurance payments to the public purse compared to just 17% of the lower earner. Better not all be dragged down had we.

A disingenuous reply to a very disingenuous statement from you. What makes you think that a former chief executive or director or manager who has lost their job and ends up with debts round their neck has any more choice to be picky about their salary than some so called "poor" person on a low income. Personal circumstances dont come into your statement. The point was very simple. We ALL accept what renumeration we are prepared to receive for our work the day we sign on the dotted line with an employer. Those of us who have little responsibility and/or enough rainy day income tide us by and/or skills/qualifications/assets in demand can CHOOSE to be a little more selective of a job we pick and if we are so bold, set out a figure to a prospective employer of we would expect to receive for a role. That freedom can apply to ANY sort of job not, as you mistakenly assume, just high level ones. For those of us chiefs OR shop floor who need the money, have debts, have responsibilities we can quite obviously be far less picky or even sometimes be forced into accepting a figure what we deem beneath us. That circumstance also can apply to BOTH higher or lower earners. Why are you always so blinded by one side? You never look at a bigger picture and desprately try any attempt to continually bash the perceived rich.

Have you totally ignored other posters on this thread. Firstly there are not "so many" struggling to survive and on the streets. There are a few genuine people who quite rightly deserve help As others have pointed out for the remainder of them, they do not have ANY reason to be there. They are fake. They are scammers. They are there due to their own self-inflicted reasons and need to take responsibility for themselves. SOME choose to be there begging because they make good money out of it. SOME choose to ignore the mutliple services available to them. SOME choose not to live in accommodations offered to them because they have to follow rules and regulations to drinking, drugs, smoking, pets and refuse. SOME choose not to engage with the very people trying to help them. Secondly, just because YOU say there is no help available doesn't mean its fact. The most vulnerable and those genuinely in priority need DO get care. Services exist all over the city and there are entire NHS hospital units dedicated to it. However, there is not an infinite supply of money and many people need to get pushed into taking responsibility for themselves instead of sitting back and expecting the state to provide a life for them. You casually state earlier that your former service users allegedly needed an "immense amount of one to one support" Well reality the check is - that costs an immense amount of money to provide and despite what you percieve not all service users should be offered the higher levels of one-to-one support when they have the ability to survive perfectly well by other means. Funding is not infinite and the needs and demands on the NHS have never stopped increasing from day one. Something has to give. For far too long people have taken it for granted including those who routinely fail to take responsibility for themselves and expect the state to sort them out. Enough is enough. The range of conditions and severity which is conveniently lumped under the title "mental health" is huge. Once too often it is totted out as some excuse for a person's behaviour almost absolving them of having to take control of thier own actions and face the consequences. You talk about the good old days of care and support but lets not forget it wasnt that long ago that people with such mild conditions like post-natal depression, shock or anorexia were locked up in psychiatric hospital wards and given experimental treatments and drugs. Is that the sort of one to one care intensive belts and braces mental health treatment we should be going back to?? People need to stop taking everything at face value.

Everyone decides their own renumeration Anna. You accept a job offer and wage terms or not. If you feel you are being undervalued, you say so and make an offer of what you would be prepared to accept. If an employer wants you enough they will pay it. Its how job interviews work.

So lets get to the bottom of this. What we know for sure was that an incident occured and caused some heavier than normal traffic and longer than normal passage of time through a main throughfare. Then, dependant on where you were or how dramatic you like to tell a tale, tell people were either delayed by a few extra minutes or it was total chaotic gridlock and the end of the world as we know it.... Right? If ever there was a more perfect example of learning not to take a headline at face value this sort of posting and its associated facebook strom is it.

Nonsense. For goodness sake when will people stop banging on about zhc as if its some unknown phonomena that only existed in the years when the evil tories got into power. Jesus christ has nobody heard of the words CASUAL LABOUR. Join a company and wait until you are given a shift as and when required by the needs of a business. Its how I worked in my hotel days and its how many people still work now. Not every business has a constant flow of operations which requires a constant level of staff. Not every business can or does operate 365 days of the year. Just because its got some trendy buzz words of "zero hours contract" does not mean that the concept did not exist before the left wing media blew it out of all proportion. Nobody with a brain cell actually thinks that a zhc job is something they are supposed to undertake for the rest of their career and survive on long term. Those who do think like that need a good kick up the backside. ANY work is better than NO work and if you are jobless there is no excuse. Even if its as and when. People who trot out the phrase "better off being unemployed" quite frankly disgust me. Nobody fit and healthy for work is owed a lifestyle off the state.

I spend all of my working week in town too but think you are completely exaggerating. We are certainly not "literally overun" as you describe. There is no "gauntlet" to be run unless someone is so weak and feeble in character that they cannot bypass those who may approach them. There are thousands and thousands of people in that city every day. People living there, working there, studying there, visiting there, shopping there. The car parks are rammed. The streets are full. The hotels are occupied. The offices are active. Overrun with street beggars?? My bony backside we are. YES we have a problem. YES there are SOME beggars and street drinkers but there are in EVERY city all over the world. Sheffield is certainly not unique in that problem and the numbers are at worst the same as other cities, but personally I feel are actually far far less. In my opinion Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham have significantly higher numbers. What is wrong with us these days? When did we become these prissy and uptight individuals that the sight of a (so called) beggar or drunked on a public street in a large city is interpreted as some sort of major crisis which city is doomed to failure. Jesus christ, its a circumstances that has been in existance in every city all over the world since year dot. Beggars and Street drinkers were just as prevelant when the city was in its so called rose tinted prime time of the 60s-80s. Maybe people back then just got over it. The irritiating thing about public streets is that they are used by the public. Yes, the council, homeless services, charities and 100 other organisations can try and do get them off the streets but that will not stop some people returning time and time again. I would at least agree with you that a tougher stance needs to be taken but there is no magic wand for this situation. We need to stop banging on about this issue, making up nonsense about how the city is filled to the brim with dregs of society and having hysterical people describing it as some dangerous and unpleasant no go zone. - it just isnt. Have we become so ingrained with our totally sanitised privately owned enclosed and controlled shopping precincts that its really turned us this way. Have we become so zombified walking around the the muzak filled marble clad neon lit bubbles that we forget that public streets are just that. Open and accessible to any member of the public - even sometimes those less desirable ones. "no thank you".... keep walking. "not interested"....keep walking. "no change".... keep walking. Served me perfectly well for years and never had to face any "gauntlet" you purport. We really do need to toughen up.

blah... blah... Behind the obviously sensationalised headlines some of the contents of those articles make fair statements about him. Just becuase you dont like it doesn't mean it can be ignored. The press are entitled to judge, give opinion and speculate. That's what they do. Impressions count in that business. Its well known to anyone entering politics, particuarly someone with his experience that everything to say, everywhere you go, every action you take, the company you keep, the people you meet or even what you think about is watched, scrutanised, picked over and used either to support or use against you. Maybe he needs to take that on board more. Ulimately, if he cant stand the heat then he needs to get out the kitchen. I say before and I will say again. 35 years he has been a politician, he should be tough enough to handle it by now. Enough with this constant whining about media bias, establishment and unfair treatment. Its politics and he is well and truely part of that "establishment". He has been getting a pay cheque from it since 1983. Dont pretend like the Tories have not had exactly the same treatment by the press, public and MPs over the decades. You are certainly not going to tell me that Corbyn has not thrown plenty of barbs at his opponents over the years and played the media like a fiddle when he thinks can get something out of it. Where were your criticisms about the bad press, personal ridicule and abuse on a daily basis Blairites received during his terms? How about the disgusting comments, chanting, ridicule and venomous abuse that was almost being encouraged about following the departing of Margaret Thatcher More recently we have the savage press criticism, twitter abuse and even abuse from his own colleagues that Nick Clegg suffered durng his coilition term. Lets not pretend its all about precious Corbyn - that's just naive.

Maybe people here are just more rational, practical and level headed. Maybe people here think about the bigger picture and long term future before diving in (whey!) to some financial burden. In answer to the OP. YES! It would be nice to have an outdoor swimming pool on these hot sunny days. BUT, after the initial surge of people - then what? What happens the other 50 weeks of the year? Once the novelty dies off and climate returns to its usual position who is using it? Do you think if this thread was posted in the middle of a freezing, rainy, miserable November people would still be as keen to building such a facility? As others have posted, those rare outdoor pools that survive are mostly volunteer lead, local community donations, failing projects. Yes of course there are the exceptions such as Hampstead Ponds but they are long established almost historical sites. Despite that, even they have had to start charging people to swim there. You certainly cant replicate that in the middle of Sheffield and magically expect sufficient patrons. You cannot magically try and replicate the long-historical trend of outdoor swimming, pools, lagoons and lakes on the continent and instantly expect Brits to suddenly adopt it and be willing pay for it. Its not our long-standing cultue. You certainly cant expect the niche group of hard core outdoor swimming enthusiasts to keep such a facility funded either - there are simply not enough of them and certainly not enough to pay the money that would be required to run it. The fact remains there are ample facilities for swimmers in this city. For those serious competitive swimmers we have dedicated pools with all the size, shape, kit, timers and like minded users they want and need. For those just wanting lane swimming for gentle exercise, every major gym centre has a pool. For those that want just the occasional spalsh around there are several pools catering for them too - plus keeping them indoors means that they can still get footfall and money in the till when the clouds come over too. Pools costs money. Its not just about digging a hole and filling it with water. Tastes and trends change. Younger people these days expect more. Ever increasing numbers of Brits spend their summer time abroad or at specialist holday resorts. The world has moved on. Of course people "moan about money, weather and profitability". They are important and perfectly sensible things to think about. Why you raise that as some negative I really dont know. The world is not some fairy tale. We dont pay builders, contractors, suppliers and staff needed to create such a thing out of angel farts and pixie dust.

Pretty much sums up Corbyn's failures perfectly. Forget the hard graft of getting to the facts of an issue. Forget actually looking behind the populist headlines to get the truth. Forget about actually putting in the hard work of looking at the bigger picture. Forget about coming up with a realistic and deliverable solution to the problem. Forget about having the balls for sometimes having to make unpopular but necessary actions to ensure ALL parts of running the country are maintained - not just the fancy and popular bits the wider public only focus on. Oh no, not our Jezza. Instead he takes the populist easy route of showing some biased fictional piece of work to his MPs and treat is a absolute facts which all must obey. A piece of work (lets not forget) produced by long time party member, socialist chum and aquaintence of said leader. An aquaintence who also happened to endorse said leader, produce a filmed interview with him and even get involved in his election campaign videos. Christ, no wonder Jezza worked so hard selling his film to all and sundry. 35 years that waste of space has been in parliament. Coming up 3 years as "leader" of the opposition and he has achieved what exactly? Its claimed we have the most shambolic and polarised government in history and he still can't break out in the public polling. Nothing but a professional protester. Always was. Always will be. I'm still convinced to this day that he didn't really want leadership and has no genuine desire to be PM. Waste of time for everyone.

Probably pennies so I am sure you can cope. YOU dont like him. Fine. Millions of other viewers do - its choice. I personally cant stand football and the millions of pounds of licence fee monies spent beaming it into our homes, but as I realise plenty of others love it even to the point of it being a national passion, im not going to whine about it.

Your post 34 "...it because the beeb have more than their share of gays on board ..." Your post 40 ".....its like a gay channel...." Now you claim your dislike is because of the Presenter's style eh?? Horse crap. It think its perfectly obvious what your point of dislike is and its jack all to do with any style of presentation. Absolutely pathetic. No balls to stand by your previous comments. Back peddling at its finest.

......why would that be then?? What exactly has stopped you from listening?? Come on. If you are going to say something outrageous earlier in the thread at least be consistent.

Perhaps the CAB do know what they are doing, but the recipient of the advice isn't hearing what THEY personally want to hear. Its a scenario most lawyers face on a daily basis. As others have said, the OP needs to speak to the landlord, with any appropriate log/evidence of what's happened. Until that step is taken there is nothing they can be advised on. Landlord owns the property. Landlord is the only one who has possession and control of the things in dispute. Landlord is the one has authority to do something about it (legal proceedings or otherwise).

You do realise that bodies from both sexes are used this way. Sex sells. Why do you think pretty boys and pretty girls pose for photoshoots next to some product? Why do you think for every so called seedy and disgusting lapdancing bar there are seemingly perfectly acceptable male strip troupes and semi naked men for hire to spice up hen parties and birthdays. Why do you think every other television programme gets filled with the pouty, glamour hungry, preened types? (*see TOWIE/Love Island/Chelsea/Kardashians). Why are the Sunday Sport and Lads Mags criticised and banned but its perfectly acceptable for every other womans magazine to have some waxed, oiled bloke in their knickers posing on the centre pages? Its business. A business with a market. A business that has been long established for decades. Bodies are a commodity for those who choose to use them that way. For many people its a damn good living. Its their choice and despite what many critics scream it does work BOTH ways.