ECCOnoob

Who is going to stop us? Considering we are one of the major funding contributors to the event which automatically gives a free pass straight to the finals I cant see the organisers rushing to kick us off the list. We could put up a trained chimp or a sack of spuds as our entrant and we would still get a place in the final. You are aware that leaving the EU is not the same as leaving Europe right?

If you had bothered to watch it you would note that the votes are combined from both a jury of experts AND public votes. When looking at the results the two sets were at absolute polar opposite. The public knew what they liked and were certainly a galaxy away from what the expert music panel thought they should like. Given that Israel is a absolute political minefield right now I dont think it really supports your "...its just all tactical voting" "..its all about a dislike for the UK" "...its just all PC nonsense" therory does it. Christ, we didn't even manage to get top points from the three countries with the closest alliance with ourselves let alone much in the way of sympathy votes for what happened. Maybe we need to think about who we are sending in future and actually what the "eurovision" crowd want. Lets be realistic here. Eurovision has not been about genunie musical talent for decades. That's not even why people love it anymore. Slick, professional, well trained and well delivered acts is not what is about or what people want. You can see that a mile off just by watching the way the crowd reacts to each artist. Its all about populist, gimmicky, silly and outrageous. Its a silly little tradition each year, which despite the predictable snobbery and snooty comments, attactions multi-millions of viewers worldwide. Try and think of any other (non sporting) television programme that actually gets set as a diary appointment viewing and brings people to arrange parties when watching it. As for the stage invader well, from what I have read he has form. He has already done it on several other uk TV shows including ones in the high secured closed sets of a studio. I dont think you can point the finger at just Eurovision for any lapses on that one. Only hope is that as he has tried it on in a different country he might come to regret it. Maybe the portugeese might not be so easy going as he has spoilt their big moment.

Sounds like these constantly criticised companies and so called "rich" scumbags are taking responsbility for paying the correct amount of tax too. Paying what the law says they are obliged to pay. I dont understand why others who blindly scream its not enough think they have a right to enforce some sort of fantasy "moralistic" Judgment to force them to pay more. There is no such thing as a Court of Morals

Then they look for somewhere cheaper. If they cant find anywhere affordable at all then they need to really think hard about whether they are yet in a position to buy a house. Expectation and reality are two very very different things. If they really cant buy any sort of house in any sort of area, then they rent or roomshare or continue to live with their parents or stay with friends or sofa hop or even apply for priority with a local authority until they get themselves in a better position If they cannot manage to do either of the above then quite frankly they have bigger priorities to sort out before even begining to dream about home ownership. Im not sure what sort of response are you really seeking here? Surely you are not going to keep going on some exhaustive list of residential areas to try to prove that every single property and every single area is outside the reach of some young graduate in full time work. That's just nonsense. If you are merely fishing for some stock answer of "make them all cheaper" or "give them all a grant towards it" then that is also nonsense. Look, im not denying that housing is expensive. Im am not even going to challenge that property in certain popular areas has not risen dramatically BUT what I will maintain is that this nothing new. Every single generation throughout time has had housing costs to be the biggest financial burden in their lives. I am also going to strongly maintain that this current generation have income, financial support, improved working standards and improved living standards and a social lifestyle that some of their previous generation would only dream of. The debate can rage on till the cows come home and polar opposite statistics and "facts" can be bandied about dependant on what source is quoted and what agenda that source is pushing. One very important thing cannot be deneid though. There are plenty of young people (including many who have never been to university) who HAVE managed to scrimp and save to get themselves a property. A modest even perhaps poky property - yes. In a less than preferred area - yes. BUT its a start and everyone has to start somewhere. The question to be asked is what are these types of young house owning millenials (including myself) doing that is clearly working over all these others young people who are perceived to be in such dire straits and requiring the teat of mother government to sort them out. They cant all be dismissed as spolit rich kids or lucky people getting their inheritances early so......?

Increased by 71% then based on your exampled "average"

So have wages. There was no such thing as a mandatory minimum wage until the introduction of the act with the first payments not applying until 1 April 1999. Before then you got paid what a company decided you were worth or whatever you could argue from your boss. Even when the Act first came in the hourly rate for an adult was £3.60 compared to todays £7.83. Try £6,200 a year as in line with my first full time job. Compared to national madatory minimum £13,100. Lets not forget that the tax free allowance back then was just £4600 compared to today's £11800. As I keep saying. Its all relative.

Yes there was. It just hadn't been given a snappy media friendly buzz word. It was called casual labour. I should know because I used to do it. I was employed with no fixed hours and was put on a shift as an when the company needed me dependant on demand. That's pretty arguable. There were certainly less protections and procedure for dismissing and disciplining employees back then. Employment Rights have changed dramatically and mostly in the favour of the employee. Council rents would have been relative to wages. Besides, we are supposed to be talking about purchasing property not local authority subsidised renters. Tax breaks may well have existed but for many mortgage payers in the 70s and 80s interest was up at 15 / 18 per cent. Certainly not the 2-5 per cent available now to buyers. The merits of being in the trade union are definately arguable. For every example of their great success there will be many more arguments about their bullying and intimidating methods, their mandatory joining for new recruits in certain industries, their closed shop nature and their negative impact on an industry as a whole. As for the other points about house property and salary, I refer back to what I said earlier. Its all relative. Minimum wage now is approaching x15 that amount each week. You may have within the NHS yes but that was certainly the exception not the norm for most people. Flexible working certainly wasn't mandatory in employment law. I think you will find lots of entry level workers can do just that now. Graduates certainly can.

Could not agree more. Can't afford the exact house you want in the exact area you want.... tough. Buy something more affordable and keep moving up the ladder when income allows. Its what millions of people for decades past have had to do. Its what I am still doing now. For the record there are still plenty of 3 bedroomed properties in Walkey for signfiicantly less than "£170,000". Yes, CYCLONE may well have bought their house in 2001 for just £55k but back then minimum wage was around £7100 net per annum. Now the same minimum wage is over £13,800 net per annum. An increase of nearly 93%. Its all relative. Besides, if we are talking about suitably qualified graduates with a degree in a desirable and valuable field then they will receive entry level earnings significantly higher than that. Yes, house prices have risen and many areas that were once deemed cheap are now popular raising demand. But, what's new? Supply and demand is not a new concept. Neither is the dramatic rises and eventual crashes of property prices. At the end of the day, nobody is owed a lifestyle. When you finish mandatory education you have a hard but necessary choice. Get a job? Do vocational studies? Do a degree? Pick a career? The outcome of that is down to one person. You make your own way in the world. All this talk of inter generational conflict is absolute nonsense. Just how did these commentators think the majority of the former generation actually get into their so called comfortable positions in the first place.... most of them worked their backsides off in much harsher and less rewarded working conditions than now. Lets go back say 40 years shall we..... No minimum wage, no working time directives, no 'flex working', no shared parental leave, no anti-discrimination or disability protections, no minimum paid leave, no mandatory pension offering. Many of the current generation will benefit from their parents "wealth" when they die anyway. All this crazy scheme seems to achieve is to tax the hell out of the pensioners accumulated assets at source. Lets say the 25s do get their £10k windfall..... Then what? What happens next time they want something but cant quite afford it. Will there be another round of experts screaming how its all so unfair? The solution is simple. Want a house?, want a start up business?, want to get on the ladder in life? Do what every generation before has done. Get a job and work for it. I really do worry we are developing an ever decaying generation of people who treat university as some automatic passage in life, graduate having never done a proper days work in thier life and then expect to walk into a £30k+ salary, have a car, house and 2 holidays a year by default. The world of social media and modern day television is drumming an unrelentless narrative of rich, unworthy, talentless and narcissistic characters who attact millions of fans by hardly lifting a finger who in turn are desiring to be just like them thinking the world will be handed to them on a plate. Having worked up the hard way (and I must add, shamefully still just within the boundary of being a so called millenial) I can very clearly tell them life does not work like that. We are fuelling an entire generation of entilement syndrome and it has to stop now.

Lets be realistic here. Firstly magically improving access and asthetic issues are just not that simple. Manchester Picc was completely re-built from the ground up in the 1960s. Sheffield Station is still working in the template of its original 1870s shell. Manchester Picc is direclty owned and operated by network rail with infinite public money to be thrown at it. Sheffield Station is owned and operated by the train company and will have a much more limited financial resource. Manchester Picc is the 4th busiest station outside London compared to Sheffield down at 11th place. Its clearly obvious who will get priority when screaming out for improvements. Unlike Sheffield Station Manchester Picc is not boxed within a valley totally restricting any grand scale plan to have a wide open concourse and nice easy single level platform access without a complete rebuild of not only the station but re-routing of the entire primary tracks in and out. Compared to 15 years ago I would say the access has got much better. Open and freely available lift access to all areas, improved frontage and access to taxis and car parking, improved and more open facilities space. Whilst Manchester Picc looks more sleek and mordern I suppose, its also bland and identi-kit to every other Network Rail primary station. Wipe out the destination board and you could be standing in a dozen other stations looking just the same. At least (for once) Sheffield has made improvements without losing some of the orginal character of a building.

Its awful for them but I cannot say they did not bring some of it themselves. They created and fuelled the monster surrounding the whole tragic saga. Now they are finding out the hard way that is its more difficult keeping it under control once released.

Hang on a sec. Let me get this right. You claimed: You then say: $620 is approximately £454.20 So, Cost of stereo £454.20 Cost of flight £300 Total spent £754.00 what exactly would the saving have been??

Same at my end of town. Asda Chapeltown, Asda Parsons Cross, Asda Catch Bar Lane and Sainsburys Wadsley Bridge. I suspect at least one of them will have to go. An Asda branch most likely. Having said that, there seems to be a Coop on every other street and Tesco has approx 6500 stores which is more than 3x Sainsburys and Asda combined so maybe they will all be able to survive.

I would agree. Tesco already has a market share nearly double its nearest rival and the take over of Booker Wholesale increased their dominance even more. The only way to allow the others to have a chance of competing with a power like that would be some sort of merger. Although I am very surprised it was a Sainsburys/Asda tie up. They really dont seem quite compatable somehow.

Dont be so rediculous. I think it is a very clear fact the comment was not about the "passing of an infant" but directly about the disgusting carnival and mob mentality which surrounded it. Other sick and potentially dying children were in that hospital every day whilst this unruly pack gathered outside causing their unwarranted noise, making violent threats and causing mass disruption to not only the operation of the hospital but additional distress and inconvenience to every other parent visiting the place. At a time when they were at their most emotionally vulnerable, the Evans were prayed upon, minipulated and brainwashed by the extreme religious groups to be used as some sick poster campaign for thier own disturbing agendas. Filled with false hopes, empty promises and on a personal point of view, totally inadequate and unbiased legal represenation which they clearly needed. That was the circus which damn rightly needed to end. Instead of a life ending in dignity and family unity with their dying son, this tragic case has instead been breamed around the worlds media with every tom dick and harry poking their nose in and giving their unwarranted and often totally unreasonable opinon. The talking heads, publicity hungry politicians and god botherers using the death of this boy to stroke their own egos and further their causes should all be ashamed of themselves. Enough now. The child has died. The parents need to grieve alone. If ever there was a example of just exactly why the law puts a childs own rights over the rights of their parents, this is it.

Its not supposed to. Its not about entertaining her directly. Its exactly the same with every single Royal Variety, Gala Concert, Garden Party, State Banquet and Opening Ceremony. They select guests/performers/artists who suit the narrative, draw the biggest viewers, are on trend and who more importantly are available and within budget. You dont think she is actually picking all these people out do you? Its not the queen's private entertainment. Its about the bigger picture of marking the occasion.

Oh here he is again with his inverse snobbery. Prey tell CarBoot... What so called "real" news was the main headline on tonights edition of scum class news for thickos. Oh just remind me what reliable source you get your news from since you dont watch any live broadcast television?

It does mine too. I never think of myself as a luddite but when things like this happen it just boggles my mind. I have taken 30 seconds to look up and this is what is now spinning round my head. How the hell can a 16 year old so called "star" of a video upload site seriously get 3.1 million subscribers to thier channel, 186k twitter followers and seemingly be on some publicity tour round the tween gathering points in the country. The current generation of yoof really are doomed.

I think you might be getting a little confused. If your friend had an accident at work that is a personal injury claim. Its employer liability. The solicitor you have highlighted deal with medical negligence (eg: misdiagnosis or botched treatment). That is a totally different specialism. There are plenty of dedicated personal injury solicitors out there and most will offer a no-win no fee. A word of advice when looking, be careful check when doing a web search that the place you choose is a proper solicitors firm rather than some glossy looking but completely useless accident management company. If you ever in doubt, check the firm's credentials here: http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/search/results?LocationId=sheffield-south-yorkshire&Location=Sheffield+&Pro=False&UmbrellaLegalIssue=LIUPIN&LegalIssue=LIPIN&Language=

Do you know something. Your attitudes and prejudices absolutely stink. Firstly what has anyone's class and social leaning got to do with income. There are plenty of scum class extreme right wingers, benefit cheats, cash in hand traders who have just as much money in the bank. There are even more left wing nutjobs, champagne socialists and cultish corbynites who have just as much money in the bank. Secondly, why the hell should this perceived "middle class" affulent population have to sub additional retirement plans for lower earners. They already pay their taxes and NI contrubutons into the national pot just like everyone else. You make it sound as if lower earners can sit on their backsides and make no contribution whatsoever towards their own retirement. After all, those more hard working higher earning people will just sort them out eh???? How about everyone takes a responsibility instead. Its all relative after all Say a rough amount of 3% contribution. A lower earner on minimum wage would put in around £38 a month into a pension. That so called "rich" person earning £45k a year would have to put in £112 a month. A so called high earning elitist corporate scumbag earning £80k a year would have to put in around £200 a month. How about the uber rich like those monsters you hate so much at the BBC earning their six figure salaries, well they get hit with anything from £250 a month. Lets also not forget that unlike the "middle class" and "rich". Those minimum wage earners pay less than £1,500 a year on tax and NI compared to £11k deductions / £25.5k deductions and £33k+ deductions the other respective earners pay. What exactly is the problem here. The more you earn the more you put into your own pension. Hardly rocket science is it. You claiming that is unfair?

Right, thank you. We are finally getting somewhere. So just to be clear, you both think that it is much fairer for the licence fee to be scrapped in its current form and the relevant elements to be funded out of general taxation (with inevitable increases) which will affect the entire taxpaying population (whether or not they even use any broadcast services). .....very interesting.

Kings Lynn is on the Great Northern (formerly Thameslink) (Formerly Network South East) Commuter Belt Route. A route which majority rolling stock is EMU and operating companies that have overall network passenger numbers nearly 10x the long distance single mainline ones. What has that got to do with anything?? You changing the subject again because you cannot find an answer you like?? We are talking about intercity main lines here.

Jesus christ I might as well talk to a brick wall. Communications Act 2003 section 4 (1). Ask yourself again what does the law say you need a licence for. We do put our hands in our pockets as does anyone else who watches broadcast television. Oh and by the way, since you dont pay for it, why the hell do you think YOU are paying for any radio and tv consumption. No, you are certainly not a slave to it. YOU DONT PAY IT.....right? Or was that a load of horse crap all along eh?

I have told you twice now. There are TV licences in existance all over the world, even in countries where the psb are funded by adverts. What makes you so sure it will be scrapped?? There are other things if funds which will still need paying. Lets say they did actually get rid of it eh? Then what? Perhaps they should increase property tax like they did in the rural USA to fund broadcast services. Or maybe you would prefer the China method of applying a tax to all cable subscriptions. What about the Iceland method perhaps, you would love this, a poll tax on all income tax payers whether or not they watch or listen to any TV or Radio. You see a pattern here.

No I dont think its unfair. I am aware that the licence fee pays for other things beyond just BBC tv shows. Licence fee monies went towards significant amounts of infrastructure, research and development - many things which Sky have benefited from. It also contributed to the national broadband rollout and freeview. It provides many minority and specialist services such as AD, subtitling, minority language and community television services which the commerical broadcasters would ditch like a short if they were left unfunded. In the real world we dont pick and choose what our taxes go towards. I dont have kids but I cant start deducting my income tax which funds nursery care and child benefits because I dont use them can I. ---------- Post added 02-04-2018 at 19:17 ---------- What do you want, a round of applause? So YOU dont watch BBC services. YOU dont pay a licence fee. Whoopie Doo. Nobody cares. Lots of people still do watch it. You have failed to provide any credible submission that the licence fee will magically disppear if it goes and now you are trying to do a mystic meg on its future with wildly long ranges as between 10 - 30 years!! God sake, if you are going to make a prediction at least narrow it down a bit.

The law is a licence to receive television broadcasts. That's it. Simple as that. The fact that the money generated happens to fund the BBC operation is irrelevant. The law still stands just as it would if money raised from it funded 1001 other television, communications or other government funds. I ask the question again. If the BBC was completely scrapped tomorrow - do you really really think the Television Licence would disappear??