ECCOnoob

How would you know. Are they bent over the studio desk at it whilst they are delivering their script on air? Are they giving each other a suck whilst interviewing some studio guest? Are they fondling each others bits whilst the travel woman is giving her latest bulletin? Are they camping it up filling the airwaves with double entendre during their broadcasts? ....... or perhaps is it that you are just some knuckle dragger who has a massive chip on their shoulder about gay men. TWO out of the eight presenters that day just happen to be gay. So what? They are doing their job just like everybody else. Get over yourself. If it wasn't for forum rules and public decency I would show your pea brain what a real "gay channel" looks like. You would be hiding behind your Westbro Baptist Church Duvet for a month.

In this day and age I would question why they would be needed. People have smartphones, tablets, kindles, laptops these days. As others have said there is free wifi in the hospital. Why would someone want to sit in some communal tv room when they can sit on their own ward in their own chair/bed watching what they want to watch exactly when they want to watch it. I concede there might be a small number of the very elderly who are not in possesson of such technology but they are certainly not the majoirty these days. Smartphones have been mainstream for well over 10 years with the internet being mainstream for nearly 25 years. Provision of a TV in every day room might seem a little trivial thing which bearly breaks the bank, but just like everything else involving mass organisations the costs soon rack up. The outlay to purchase the sets, the depreciation and replacement costs, the TV licencing costs, the costs of maintaining and annual testing, the man hours to arrange purchase, install and control all these sets.... (x) the number of hospitals in the health authority (x) the number of authorities covering the entire NHS. I would argue that precious NHS monies should not be spent on a facility that is fast becoming obsolete. There is a fast growing generation of people who dont even watch so called "broadcast TV" in their own home from one week to the next. The chances of those types of patients sitting in a day room to watch broadcast television on a communal set are virtually none existent.

Do you think 99% of the general population would? How about we stick you out there and see how you cope eh? Why single out the Royals. Never known such a ridiculously loaded comment.

One thing absolutely guaranteed in life is that you will die. With the obvious exception of those with life-long non-recoverable debilitating physical or mental health conditions.... In cases of the majority of the adult population, to reach old age with no estate, no assets, no money in the bank and nothing on you then its absolutely clear something along the line has gone terribly wrong. As others have said there are pre-paid funeral plans from less than £1 a week. These unfortunate deceased people must have also at some point family, friends, acquaintances who help out and see them through the final stages of life financially if in difficulty. That's what people who love each other do right? But, no. Seemingly there are the regulars who just sit there expecting the state to fund their entire lives for them. Well, there you go. No pay no get. You want state to sort it out. They have. A simple, no frills so called "paupers funeral". All the essentials taken care of and a cremation at the end. Full stop. I have to ask what more should one really expect to receive? Lets not make out like this is some disgraceful and barbaric end to a life. Its not like the state are leaving the departed to rot in the street or throw them into some mass unmarked grave for heavens sake. At the end of the day, if a person and their family wants the nice long service with a bespoke made coffin of their choosing and all the trimmings of a pall-bearer precession and a nice wake afterwards - that costs money. Its all about taking responsibility again. You want something above basic provision. You pay for it. ---------- Post added 16-06-2018 at 14:45 ---------- I would probably be in support of that. I am completely non-religious. My thoughts and memories of my late father are in photographs, objects and my head - not by visiting some graveyard or plaque with an annual rental charge. Whilst I had a service which cost about £3500 out of the estate and a contribution from myself and my brother. That was more for the extended family rather than ourselves. The wake was at home and I dont think any of us visited the plaque at all after the day of the funeral. I would agree that there will be a rise in these types of arrangements, but not because of some faux anti-tory anti-austerity nonsense. More likely the next generation (and far less religious generation) will simply see it as a superb perfectly practical value for money way of dealing with the deceased.

Charged for what exactly? Poor people in what way exactly? Nothing has been fully established yet. They can do their invesigative journalism all they want. I have no problem with that, however, you seem to be under some delusion that they are a magic quick fix who will charge through the evidence double quick to capture the "villans" and bring them to book. You have also gone all tin foil with some wild statement that all public inquires are just snail pace process ultimately there to establish some method of cover up. You need to realise that any disaster such as this is not black and white. There are 1001 different things to consider. Blame is not something you just pluck out of thin air. The incident MAY or MAY NOT have been caused as a result of the hands of architects, construction companies, local authorities, central government, Health and Safety Executives, cladding manufacturers, product designers, product testers, landlords, tenants, illegal tenants, window manufacturers, door manufacturers, fire chiefs, police officers and even the firemen themselves. Once they have done that, then what? It still needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt that any or all of those individual(s) or companies have actually broken the law. Upsetting and appauling as the tragedy is, SOMETIMES there is no single blame. SOMETIMES it takes a tragedy itself to happen for the laws to be changed and society to think differently. Its happened before and it will happen again. The cause of the Kings Cross disaster was a previous unknown phonomenen. The age of asbestos being the magic future building material which was pefect fireproofing until is horrendous health problems came to light. The use of lead in domestic substances such as paint were common until the nasty side effects were known. The miricle discovery that was CFC gases and the answer to so many problems, until the hole in the ozone layer happened. Some are still denying that..... the list goes on. I am not afraid of the media at all. I am just trying to demonstrate to you that its not that simple as people screaming "get em all prosecuted" and "put em on trial". That is pure emotion which has no place when try to objectively establish facts.

Completely disagree. That's the last thing we need. The media throwing out their opinion, speculation and stirring up the already excessive public "outrage" You say people need be prosecuted as if its that easy. Have you actually thought for a second about that process. Firstly, prosecuted for what exactly? What criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt has this readilly identified individual(s) committed? What deliberate negligent actions and breaches of the law of this county at this time can be categorically proven on the balance of probabilities against readilly identifiable individual(s)? Until an inquiry says otherwise people need to realise that sometimes things just happen. Things lay undiscovered until a tragic event brings them to light. Things once seen as perfectly acceptable standards suddenly on the spin of one incident become the exact opposite. Accepted ways and methods undertaken for generations suddenly are deemed unsafe and unreasonable. A catastrophic chain of events can occur none of which is necessarilly the blame of a single entity. It COULD be a tragic event with no single individual fault and until we are told otherwise by those with all the information and the correct objective status there is no place for high emotional, highly subjective reactions and media spin. Facts are what's needed.

Firstly. we already have 7 international airports in "The North". If you include the Midlands that increases to 9 international airports. How many more do you want to build? How do you think that will go down with the environmentalist brigade who are already opposing expansion of the existing primary airports? Where do you think all these international travellers are going to come from? - lets face it outside of the budget flight holiday season the majority of the regional airports are dead. Airports can take decades to be fully established. Manchester is the nearest equivillent to Heathrow we have in view of its multiple terminals, continuous traffic and some limited but frequent non-holiday footfall but even that if very small trade and took years to develop. Leeds Bradford is hardly thought about by anyone outside holiday charter flights despite being an established aerodrome LONGER than Manchester. Doncaster-Sheffield is no doubt good for our region and handy to have, but lets be realistic its barely much outside being a glorified bus stop for Thomson/Tui holiday passengers. I would disagree that international businessmen dont know that there is life outside London. There are hundreds of organisations which have roots outside the Capital. Someone must be visiting them. Just in our own city we have HQs from major companies including Spear & Jackson, B Braun, SIG, Arnold Laver, Ansys, Henry Boot, Outokumpu, Gripple, Swann Morton, Forgemasters, MJ Gleeson PLC. We have large presences from the Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions, UK Visa Section (Home Office), Greencore, Capita, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, Aviva PLC, Arconic, BT PLC, Sky, Virgin Media, Plusnet, and Santander. I dont doubt that this needs building and we can be doing so much more. However, im not convinced another airport is going to somehow magically transform things. Ultimately we can northshore business and offices all we want, in fact, many companies are becuase they are seeing the costs savings. HOWEVER, we can never forget that London is the capital. It always has and always will be the premier city getting the most investment and stay recognised the most by those outside the UK. Very little is going to change that. I certainly dont think the UK is alone in that.

HOF has certainly faced the same issues as Debenhams no doubt, but I would disagree with the built to last, long term comments. I actually think the opposite effect is happening. Its the fast fashion, quick turn, throw it away tomororw retailers which are booming. Primark is a prime example. As are online retailers Boohoo and ASOS. People (particuarly the yoof) can buy a new outfit as protrayed by their favourite influencers made for pennies abroad and sold at a bargain price. When they are bored with it or when the trends change, they bin it and get something else. Those types of shoppers are not going anywhere near the ye-olde department stores to be given personal service by a Mrs Slocome-esque Assistant and spending £80 - £100 - £200 on some long lasting "classic" designed to be worn for years after. That's not their bag at all. They want to pick up what's trending on instagram the next day with no fuss and no hassle all with an intention of getting rid as soon as wind changes. Even the highest end Department Stores are realising this. That's why Selfridges has had a Primark concession within their own stores. Harvey Nichols has certainly changed their stock over the years to focus on younger clients with a focus on more edgy stock. Their newer stores are nothing like what would be deemed traditional department store. They are much smaller, spaces, far less structured and with less staff. Having looked at the list of HOF closures, I am not surprised by many of the locations picked. They mostly seem to be small provincial towns with ex Binns or Rackhams stores which were all desprately outdated and would have taken years to be turned around into the sort of modern retail environment demanded by today's customers. I will say that one big surprise was the closures of Oxford Street and Birmingham. Those were stores which I would have thought would be deemed their flagship and best traders (similar to the prestige and footfall that Kendals in Manchester has). I can only assume that the decision was based on rent savings rather than those store's profits. I will be interested to see what happens with both locations as they are massive buildings with huge sq footage to be filled.

For your first sentence I would believe it and its a lovely destination which I would recommend to others. As for your second sentence I would query what exactly is deemed "value for money". Yes prices may be higher, but there is a very obvious reason for that. Salary and overheads. Minimum wage level in Slovenia is reported to be 4.84 euros (approx £4.25) per hour. National minimum wage level for the majority in the uk is £7.83 per hour. That's a difference per hour of 84% higher. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef18005en.pdf Not really like for like circumstances. If we can just admit that the bottom line bargain price is all we look for and really all we care about that's fine. However, I do find it quite hypocritical when plenty of posters on this forum bang on about poor downtrodden workers on pitiful wages on one hand, but then moan and complain about Rip Off Britain on the other hand. Cant have it both ways.

The important word there is "from" £60 per night. I have just run a search for the identical flat in the middle of the next school holiday and the same flat is £126 per night plus a service fee. Prices for holidays UK and Abroad flucuate dependant on supply and demand, how you book, how far in advance you book and specifically where you book. I personally dont think the UK is particurly more expensive than abroad if people genuinely compare like for like. Somewhere like Benidorm or Majorca will always have lower prices as oppose some small British seaside town simply because the competition is larger. Ultimately, just like everything else, when people keep demanding wages go up overheads and sale price will also go up.

Because the "mass public" are dumb. The "mass public" are easily minipulated particularly by popular media. The "mass public" are reactionary. The "mass public" overexaggerate, edit and distort facts. Harm can be done by sensationalised stories and chinese whispers created from highly unlikley predictions and unverified rough notepad suggestions. Salmonella Egg controversy for example or how about the bucketloads of misinformation created from the MMR / Autism links. Both of those incidents were created and blown up from what was merely theretical academic preditions within lengthy and complex reports. Snip snip the jucy bit forget about the rest and hey presto you have an attention grabbing story. I am certainly not saying the public dont need to be made aware of things but focus on ONE single aspect of a wide ranging thing is not helping anyone and is wholly minipulation by the media. If The Times and all these morons jumping all over this story wanted to be so noble - why didn't they focus and provide sensationalist headlines about the OTHER two papers also produced by the civil servants on the same subject. Why all the focus about the scary doomsday one eh? Perhaps its because it will sell more papers. Now thanks to it, all that will be talked about on the twitterati and the news will be the "doomsday" paper. From the viewpoint of the "mass public" the other two dont even exist.

You are missing the point. Its not about pro or anti bexit. I know the scenarios have been modelled by Civil Servants. Civil Servants do that all the time. They create reports, proposals, suggestions, ideas. They have think tanks and brainstorm sessions and creative idea groups as to what MIGHT happen and moreover what they would LIKE to happen. They prepare wildly speculative future projections and seek advice on the absolute worse case situation and come up with proposals on how to deal with it. All of that is rough notepad stage which is neither likely or definitive basis to reality. However, that never stops Newspapers snipping out the jucy bits losing all context and publishing such a load of guff as factual reporting. What's even worse these days is that, all that inaccurate and speculative reporting is followed up by talking heads, journalists, opinion machines, MPs and Minsters who all should know better using those distorted facts as some concrete evidence to what WILL happen to minipulate and push thier own agenda on the public. That's just what is happening here. It sickens me.

Yawn. A load of might, maybe, could, may and what ifs. A few worst case scenarios jotted down on a fag packet nicely packaged up, dramatised and splashed all over the font page to sell more copies. Remember in the 70s when nuclear armageddon was going to happen and we were all going to die except for a handful of civil servants in a underground bunker. For those unfortunate survivors there would be not enough food, no power, deadly riots on the streets...... Remember the 80s when the industrial strikes were sure to grind Britain to a halt and everything involved with goverment was absolutely positively going to fall apart leading to chaos with not enough food, no power, deadly riots on the streets...... Remember the 90s when the age of the microchip was going to turn and kill us all due to the millenium bug. Planes were going to fall out of the sky, hospitals were going to stop functioning, all modern infrastructure and supply was going to collapse and there would be not enough food, no power, deadly riots on the streets...... Remember in the 00s when the middle east all kicked off again. Oil was going to stop flowing, our infrastructure was not going to be able to cope, supplies were going to run out, operations would cease to happen and there would be not enough food, no power, riots on the streets...... It really is astounding that in a world based on Fleet Street horse crap anyone is still alive.

Cant say I am surprised at all. Just one of those shops that you almost forget still exists. CW has exactly the same issue as others that have fallen. Too many branches. Poor customer service. , Poorly trained staff. Failure to move with the times. Just in Sheffield there is one in Crystal Peaks Centre, one on Crystal Peaks retail park, one within Currys within Crystal Peaks retail park, another one at Heeley retail park, one on Ecclesall Road, one at Parkway retail park, one on fargate, two in Meadowhall, one at Meadowhall Retail Park and one stuck on a side road off Penistone Road. So that's 11 stores just in Sheffield alone. That's not forgetting the overlapping borders of Rotherham, Barnsley, Chesterfield and Doncaster. Considering most people are buying their primary good once every 18-24 months at the most it was only a matter of time before they had to close some down. They are selling products on four primary networks. Four primary networks who have their own dedicated stores. Add on the fact that the two biggest phone manufactuers they also have their own dedicated stores tossed into the market its not wonder something had to give. Anyone who knows a bit about the glory days of British Leyland will see where this will end up. When it comes to long life limited purchased products such as phones its just not feesible to have merely four primary networks and just two primary manufactuers selling exactly the same goods in overlap after overlap retailers. Fast food and grocery stores can get away with it. Rarely purchased items like phones and cars dont.

Yes, maybe it should be. BUT its their choice if they are posting something on thier own volition, or are directly involved or are the valid recepient of something. By the very topic of this thread, you yourself could be deemed guilty of exactly the same thing. After all, this public forum full of strangers who all now know about and are giving opinion on your family fued and grievance over someone else's personal facebook postings. With the exception of hiding behind the secrecy of a username is what you have done here really any different to the actions of your relative(s)?

Unfortunately unless there was some clearly defined agreement that the contents were strictly confidential there is very little you can do. Your father has not forwarded "other people's emails". He was the recipient and party to the email. He was the correctly intended receiver and once in his possession is freely able to do what he liked with it. Maybe he had good reason to forward it. That's a matter for you and him. Nobody knows the circumstances and you can only provide one side of the story which makes it impossible for anyone to give a reasoned opinion. As others have said, once you have sent it its out of your control. Ultimately, you should never put anything down in writing that you might not want someone else to see unless you are very careful how you handle it, store it or transmit it.

To be fair what else can they do other than cheap. Taxpayers would all be up in arms in they paid top whack for premium service. God sake the newspapers already get all frothy mouthed if civil service contractors budget for more than a plank of wood. We get what we pay for.

Im sorry but I have never read such a load of rot all my life. All these problems since 2008?? I dont think so. You make it sound as if before so called "austerity" the world was a happy utopia with no homeless, no drunken behaviour, no beggars, no criminal activity and no poverty. I think you actually need to get out there instead of hiding in your tin foil paranoia. You might see that the city centre is not some big scary monster. You might see that after 6pm on an average day there is not some underword that arises. In reality the city is filled with people just going about their business working, studying, socialising and for many actually living there. Get out at a weekend and you might actually see that instead of this violent drunken warzone you think, in reality the vast MAJORITY of people are simply out for the night enjoying a a few bars, a restaurant, a pub, a theatre show or some other entertainment venue. Yes, there are of course a small minority of people who go too far but they get dealt with. That is why there is always the police presence and security. Yes there may well be a handful of criminals but that has been in existance since year dot. It really does worry me that the false impression portrayed by exaggerated gossip and media outlets sensationalising every piddling little story has created people with feelings just like yours. Its absolute nonsense. How can you seriously think like that?

Its not "coming to" anything. I am sorry to hear of the two very unfortunate and upsetting incidents involving those close to you which occured. I hope they never have to go through it again and the Police sort out the first one particularly. However, lets not pretend that either of those crimes could not and did not happen before. Cities unfortunately always have had and always will have crime. A criminal element across society has been present in every generation. What's changed now is the speed, frequency, methods and dramatising of its reporting which in turn has fuelled a perception of crime ever increasing and cities becoming less and less safe.

Nor should they. Its a stupid speed limit for such a primary route into a major city and on a purpose built dual carriageway. Anyway, irrelevant to my opinion above I suspect the speed limit was the least of the considerations involved in the accident. I highly suspect the real cause will be the same as happened at Tinsley the other day. Reckless behaviour caused by certain types of people hiring certain types of cars and showing off.

Yes, things like teamworking, interacting with others, thinking on the spot, following instructions. There is a method in this perceived madness otherwise companies and managers would not do it. Be interesting to see what happens with this "investigation" or whether (as I personally suspect) its nothing more than just a stock response to appease a hysterical young man and his mother. To be honest, maybe my view of the world is tarnished. Perhaps my industry, namely Law is still "utterly childish" as you say. Clearly anyone who has had the joys or vacation placements, group assessment days or training contract interview events would tell you that activities such as the one being discussed are par for the course. Perhaps he too thinks that if he has to play silly games like that - they dont deserve him as an employee too. Either way, HE didn't get the job and the company just picked another candidate - I think we all know who the real loser out of this debacle is.

Yes I would absolutely do it if it was clearly part of some group exercise as part of overall candidate assessment. I have in my past had to do group role play discussions, make models using pasta, play guessing games about people as part of various recruitment. The world of Q&A in a meeting room is changing rapidly. These days is all about observing candidates, watching them interact with others, problem solving, improvisation, reactions to scenarios, logical thinking, willingness to particpate etc... etc... I dont really get the whole "humiliated" and "degrading" nonsense. All seems a bit OTT to me. I dont know what this "student" is planning after their A levels but if they want a job in the world of white collar or indeed any sort of larger professional organisation they had better grow up fast, because there will be lot more of that to come. Your average annual team building day is filled with crap like that let alone the sort of things prospective candidates are expected to do on corporate assessment days, work placements or even client networking events. He cant have been that humiliated considering he named himself in the National Press and got his mummy to give a comment sticking up for him. Im sure that will really help hide his embarrasment Seems more like an attention seeker to me with mummy just fuelling the fire. Maybe i'm just of completely different age and temper but I can guarantee if I went running home to mummy all "humiliated" because of an ice breaker exercise in a job assessment she wouldn't have got my back when I cried to the press.

Just to add some more facts to the mix. Particuarly since certain posters cant stop droning on about the so called "low earners".... Since the financial crisis in 2007 the national minimum wage for the majority of recipients has increased by a total of 26.5 per cent. Works out approximately to a nice steady increase each year of around 3-4 per cent. Lets go ask some of the mid-level and even so called high level earners (particarly in the private sector) how many of them have had a nice steady mandatory annual pay increase of between 3-4 per cent. I certatinly haven't and I bet i'm not alone. Think its time to have a clearer look at who REALLY is being hard done by.

Im not sure I would agree with seriously dismissing her as "talentless" Yes, I get we are all entitled to our respecitve opinions as to whether we like her or not but lets be realisitc. Nobody gets paid £6m+ and has a career in the fickle world of showbusiness for nearly 30 years without having some "talent". Personally, she is not my taste either. A very bland but uncontraversial presenter who perfectly fits the bland narrative that BAFTA would want. I also think that the over the top reaction to her jokes was perfectly planned. They knew full well what they were doing. After scandal after scandal involving the male half of the population particuarly in the world of media and arts is anyone really surprised they threw a few barbs. IMO they were damn right too. The recent twitter strom actually makes me laugh. Ah diddums did big bully boy Piers Morgan take offence at being singled out in a joke. Good. Time for him to grow up and take back some of what he dishes out. Now if we are talking percieved "talentless" that's someone I would label with it. He couldn't even keep a career going in the ego filled personality driven world of US news channels. Ultimately, I think its a lot of fuss and criticism over nothing. Lots of totally OTT reaction to her performance with some absolutely venomous and personal points against her. If people really want to see an offensive awards ceremony they should look up Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes or Neil Patrick Harris with his "its not just for gays routine" at the Tony Awards. Many of their jokes seemed to fall flat with lots of awkward reactions and twitter outrage but they are seen as top of their game in comedy. I dont feel this is much different. It really does make me wonder if Piers and his neanderthal brotherhood would be reacting the same if say, Jimmy Carr or Greg Davies had made exactly the same joke.

Saturday night's final had an average 6.9 million UK viewers alone and reached a peak of over 8 million during the results sections Based on the 2017 final figures 182 million people watched around the world. Some people must care surely.