ECCOnoob

Could not agree more. For all the doommongering simple fact is humans will aways adapt to the changing world that surrounds them. We have been doing it for generations. I dont think the shift will take as long as 100 years. Hows this for food for thought.... There is now fully grown adults who are post-google. They have never known a world without freely accessible blanket coverage internet. Add onto that, the current teenagers have never known a world without smartphones. The iphone is older than them. To those people talk of pre internet life (what many would still remember like just yesterday) is some horrific ancient world. They would have no comprehention of simple things like phone boxes or using phone books or paper reference material or road maps or even old school sms texting. Give a teen a first gen brick mobile and they would think it was from the 50s not late 90s. Thats how fast the world evolves.

Blimey, that's rich from someone who is harping on about how much better things were in the 70s. Why dont you address some of the points raised several times now. Population growth has increased dramatically. Life expectancy has increased dramatically. The range and extent of services expected (even demanded) free of charge from the NHS has increased dramatically. The developments in treatment, medication, lifestyle choices and society have changed dramatically. It all has to be paid for and your predictable shtick of "tax the rich" and "greedy bankers" just does not cut it. Something has to give and rose tinted visions of the so called glory days does nothing to sort out the problem. I say it again. Not enough going in. Too much being taken out. Try all you want but you can't seriously place all that problem on the so called "tax avoiding rich".

People can afford it. Minimum wage for must adults working full time hours is equivillent to over £1100 a month net. Its just about to increase by another £40 extra per month from April onwards. Treatment plans are available from as little as £7 - £10 a month. If someone really could not set aside such a modest amount each month to pay for their supplementary health needs (beyond essential treatment) then quite frankly they need to think about their priorities more. Why should taxes be reduced? That's the whole problem. Not enough going in and too much being taken out. Those two words again. Personal responsibility. The world does not owe someone a lifestyle.

Very difficult question. I certainly dont have all the answers but you must at least admit things cannot go on the way they are. But, since you asked. Firstly I would stop the whole "free" at source thing for everything other than essential services. No silly sidelines. No minority services. No wasteful and unnecessary auxillary services. Might discougage too many people taking it for granted and encourage them to invest in their own healthcare provision. I would have the state level stripped back to basic and essential healthcare provision only. Why should the entire system be free? Secondly, I would put responsiblity back on the people. Everyone in a working capacity should have some form of income/health protection insurance to pay for any of that non-essential treatment. Everyone who is capable and physically able to work should be taking some responsibility saving for their retirement. Low wages my foot - EVERYONE should be taking responsibility for their own way in this world. Even on a low income you would find a way to pay for essentials like health and retirement. Other less essential things will have to be put back until you can afford them - that's life. That will free up more money for those unfortunate enough - and through absolutely no fault of their own who have severe or life long illness to get the necessary services, care and treatment they require. Speaking of personal responsibility and thirdly I would make self inflicted illnesses, lifestyle choices, sporting activities, hazardous hobbies childcare/child healthcare (above say 2) and serial misssed appointments should be subject to financial charge or other penalites. I would also like to see contributions made into the service reflected in the scope/extent of service received. For example, take elderly nursing homes - why is it fair that someone who has worked hard all their lives and provided for themselves by say, property or other investments lose it all if they are taken into a nursing home when somebody else sat in the same room receiving the same treatment may have paid nothing into the system and never worked a day. I would have no shame in there being a two or multiple tiered system with certain non-essential elements.

I'm not sure I know what you are proposing. The money should got to the factory owners obviously. Their business, their machinery, their investment, their profit. What right exactly do the "many" have to give them claim on the proceeeds? They are paid for their services and work - that's why they get a salary. When the work runs out they go find other jobs. Are you trying to suggest that if machinery is a causal link of a worker being made redudant, somehow the worker is entitled to rewards from such machinery? Like I said. When one industry closes another new one is developed. Its what's been happening for generations. People will always be buying things. People will always need things.

Oh have they? All of them? You can guarantee that can you Anna. We are currently on a very different generation of pensioner now. They are not ALL live through the war, paid their way all their lives types. SOME of them have paid very little into the system. What about say all the post war stay at home mothers - have they all paid in their fair share? What about the thousands if not millions of elderly refugee/asylum seekers/naturalised immigrants who have come to the country over the years - have they all paid in? What about those who have been long time jobseekers, serial strikers, general workshy layabouts, early retirees - have they paid in a full share perhaps? Things are not always black and white. Yes, there is plenty of money about but there is more to running this country than just the bottomless pit of the NHS. You might rant about so called "pet projects", well perhaps some of us other taxpayers see them as investments or improvements to infrastructure. Either way, still does not get around the simple fact that we have moved on from 1948. Population is more than 16+ million people since the NHS was established. Nor did the NHS have the vast range of departments, services, subsidaries, wasteful community operations, endless government initatives and fund draining quangos as it does now. I refer to my earlier statement. Too much going out not enough going in. Very simple fact. The solution is much harder to establish.

I would agree. In fact in many "white collar" sectors it already has had an impact. But, is it really something to fear. Its evolution. Human society have been doing it for centuries. The great steam powered mechanical horses of the industrial revolution were seen by many as the second coming about to ruin the lives and jobs of millions. We survived. The rapid advancements in the 50s and 60s, a world of valves, blinking lights, unimaginable office machinery, mechanical brains and touch button appliances brought up in the electrical revolution was going to be death of traditional shopping, manufacturing, domestic and commercial life. We survived. The 80s and 90s computer revolution was going to be death of all clerks, pen pushers and typing pools. The end of office administration as we knew it. Millions of people out of work with companies running as a faceless and humanless machine. We survived. Now we are in the internet age. Online world of faceless and (according to some) corrupt mega corporations bringing untold damage to the world. I bet we survive. People adapt. Lose your job. Lose your industry. You move to another one and retrain. People have done it for generations before and they will keep doing it for future generations. I really dont get why people have such doomongering. This is not a new story.

You have answered your own question. You might try and dismiss it as some predictable excuse but that is in fact the crux of the issue. Rich nation or not, in the real world money is not endless. There is simply too much and too many taking from the system and not enough being paid in. Massive increases in population. Continuing increases in life expectancy. Continuing increases on demands for services. Continuing increases in demands for higher wages and national minimums for those staffing the services.... the list is endless. "free" may well have applied to service user back in the day but someone was picking up the bill. We have to face facts - these days there is not enough in the pot and something had to change. Personally, I dont think £17 an hour is extortionate. The core minimum wage alone (based on next months increase) will be £7.85 out of that then we have overheads, deductions, travel, admin, supplies and other costs. Its all has to be paid for.

Maybe they were just doing their job. You would soon have something to complain about if they completely missed some important detail in the contracts or failed to sufficiently investigate something. What work exactly did you do yourselves? If its provide information, papers and sufficient instruction then unfortunately that is something that cannot be avoided. They can only act on what you tell them and on the information you provide to them. Considering increasing numbers of conveyancing solicitors work on fixed fees these days there is very little incentive for them to "drag things out" at all. The quicker they get things done the quicker they get there money. When will people understand there is process and procedure to be done. Responses, requests and investigations to await from other parties. Clarification, amendment and drafting to be signed off. Unfortunate as it may be, that takes time but at the end of the day, that's what you are paying your lawyer to do. Maybe its just me, but I would be very concerned if my solicitor turned around with a result in a moment. Make me wonder what they missed to get it done so quick.

"smears" ??? Last time I checked there are still various reports coming out. Lots of paperwork not being disclosed. Lots of questions remaining unanswered with Saint Jeremy very evasive about answering them. Lots of petty squbbling and finger pointing at the media without matter at hand being addressed. Lots of new discoveries still flying around even from sources outside of our own remit. Yes, Corbyn has quite rightly consulted the lawyers and yes the tweets have disappeared but I dont think the work is over yet. Are we yet in a position to universally dismiss the allegations as so called smears? I'm certainly not. I want more facts and I want the so called future leader of this country to man up and actually answer some questions.

What effect will it have on the child?? Try reading what Mr M has now posted twice stating that studies show there are NO DIFFERENCES in the effects of being raised by gay or straight parents. Where is your evidence there is some sort of negative effect? What exactly do you consider "THEY" should be made to think about? If its just some deluded unverified opinion of ".....errrr errr look at them two men having a child....its not natural init..." Then that doesn't cut it pal. That is homophobic. As other have asked of you several times now. Just man up and admit it. You can of course have your opinion - but it doesn't mean that opinion isnt homophobic. Deal with it. You want to stand by your submissions grow some gonads and admit what they are.

Has it escaped your attention that they are tyring to get on with it like the rest of society. Unfortunately one too many luddite attitudes just like yours prevent them.

1. Errm, what right is that. Please do specify the legislation. Im dying to see it. 2. Ashamed of herself? How dare you call out what a woman can and cannot do with her own body and baby. Surrogate mothers and IVF creation has been around for over 30 years. Who the hell do you think you are to put this down as some shameful action on the carriers and/or the donors/parents who choose to use this process. As this thread is clearly descending the more the trolls come clip clopping out from under their rocks I do have to wonder how many of these oh so outspoken critics would have the balls to say it in a open and identifiable public forum. All too easy to act the big man saying outrageous things from behind the anonymity of a keyboard and multiple usernames. On a second note, it screams very clearly to me exactly why, even in the allegedly equality filled 2018 people still are out there on the streets protesting for gay rights and showing their support to Pride festivals. Next time somebody bangs on about "why do they still feel the need for gay pride.....what about straight pride etc...." think I will just show them this thread.

Academics have often said that those with the most extreme criticisms and OTT reactions are the ones who are desperately trying to suppress their desires to be the very thing they criticise. Clearly you are fearful of change. It's understandable as it's a big step. Maybe you are so far back in the closet you are in Narnia. Come out. Embrace the change. Time to be who you really want to be. You will feel so much better for it.

You do realise it is 2018 now not 1968. Homosexuality has been legal for 50 years. Civil Partnerships legal for nearly 15 years and full gay marraige legal for approaching 5 years. Gay Parents will be the next natural step and whole generations of those schoolkids will see nothing different from it. Just like post internet generations before then and the current batch of post smart phone generations of kids. Those schoolkids are and will be far more sophisticated, understanding and tolerant regarding a persons gender and sexuality than bigoted dinosaurs like you would be in a lifetime. Quite frankly your comments disgust me.

Maybe they do. Actors are human beings and can become ill just like the rest of us. Disappointing as it was i'm sure, there isnt much they could do. Its why they have understudies. Would you prefer it if they have cancelled that performance altogether?

Deliberately playing devils advocate (and being the inevitable voice of the Daily Mail brigade), another important question to be asked is whether there are enough people actually paying into the system in the first place as against the numbers of people using it and taking it for granted. Its all well and good ever increasing taxes on us who pay tax. But, what about all those generational jobless types or those with self inflicted ilnesss types or those serial breeder types or those who dont pay a penny in but still (often reguarly) take from it. "Free" at point of use. "universal" healthcare. "universal" treatment is all well and good until the money runs out. Highest earners contribute the most is of course the right system but what happens if they get fed up with constantly subsidising service for other people who continuinally and through their own choice contribute nothing. This must be present. Even more so when those highest earners are likely to use services the least by choosing to go private either having access to schemes or directly paying outside of the NHS system. What about all those "free" at point of use and completely taken for granted auxilliary services. Are they really so essential? Do we really need all these community facilities / minority citizen services / quangos / awareness campaigns / support groups really coming out of the budget. NHS should be for essentially healthcare and I see no reason why support services such as the above shouldn't be financed through other means.

Blimey, Look North must have well and truely run dry of content. Its already made national coverage over 4 years ago The One Show was at it back in 2013....

Not according to this from the same poster they dont. 10 minutes walk from parking to destination seems fine in Barnsley but when it came to Sheffield they complain that they were stuck "...right down Fitzwilliam Street..." despite it still being in the city centre and being the same walking time to their destination. As I said earlier. Moaning for moanings sake.

Its rare we do but for once I fully agree with you. The NHS itself does need rigourous investigations into some of its own internal failures (which we cannot deny exist) as well as more government wide failures. Cross party is something that has been invisible over the past few years. IMO its only got worse with Corbyn & Co's attitudes. Whilst I know there is an obvious place for opposition to challenge the government that should not ever be the default setting. At the moment nearly every single little government announcement is instantly dismissed by the opposition. Every proposal, idea, rough draft or even brain fart is picked up, criticised, challenged, tweeted about, analysed and dismissed before a thing is put to paper. Even when the government does come up with something positive opposition MPs (and even some of those on the same side) are falling over themselves to spout off about how its xxxx idea just rehashed or its some stolen policy because they cannot think for themselves blah blah. We are about to face one of the more turbulent political periods for decades. Enough with the school yard cat calling and backstabbing. BOTH sides of the house need to crack their heads together, start co-operating and get on with the job that us taxpayers are paying them to do.

:hihi::hihi: Really? Think you need to take a closer look around your Town. Take the rose tinted glasses off this time.

.....by a online poll conducted by the Market Association Authority so in translation best INDOOR market as voted by those who choose to look on a market traders association website or those drummed up by lobbying by the market itself. Hardly some national representation of opinion. It didn't even make to win Britain's Favourite Market category..... that went to Shrewsbury. https://www.nabma.com/shrewsbury-market-britains-favourite-great-british-market-awards/ ---------- Post added 10-02-2018 at 20:27 ---------- Oh no. How on earth did you cope with putting up with parking (within the city centre boundary) and having to walk (for a whole 10 minutes) to get to the venue. God sake. Moaning for moanings sake. Think you need to stick with the little towns. Cities are clearly too much for you.

I too live close to Barnsley "home of the pound shop" town but could not disagree with you more. I would much rather stick to Sheffield with its range of brands, department stores and other attractions. There is bugger all in Barnsley I want to use with exception of the Bank and M&S. I certainly dont find Sheffield being any of those things you list. You calling Sheffield "Threadbare" - Are you serious? You must be walking around blind. How many endless threads will there be on this forum putting down Sheffield. We have already had one today desprately attempting to link the behaviour of some football fans to the alleged decline of Sheffield's image. Now this, trying to compare the piddling little building works in a small town to the major construction projects happening all over Sheffield city centre. The Moor Market did not go against the wishes of "many locals" it was against the wishes of a handful of dilusional idiots who saw Castle Market as some wonderful thriving world which was going to remain forever popular. Thank god the rest of the population saw it for what it was. A decaying, disgusting, ugly hangover of the 60s with a aging and decreasing footfall. Markets are not in the hayday any more. The modern day successful markets are the ones at premium level with high quality gourmet and specialist items that the Supermarkets dont offer. They are no longer just buildings full of ye olde tat stalls selling exactly the same goods as 1001 supermarkets or discounters for higher prices and without the convenience of car parking and trolleys. There are whole generations of people who have barely stepped foot in the likes of Barnsley Market and with the continuing surge in internet shopping they will become even more obsolete. For all the critics Sheffield city IS moving. Finally after decades of everyone and their mother complaining about shopping being too spread out, Sheffield is getting what other large cities have done. A CENTRALISED retail core surrounded by leisure, residential and commerical on the outer areas. Replacement of the markets from a obsolete location at the wrong end of the city to its new location within the primary shopping precincts is just one phase of the huge scheme. The rest of the development (admittedly behind schedule) is coming along. Its rediculous to even attempt to compare some backwater like Barnsley to a major city like Sheffield let alone try and make it out to be somehow superior. Yes, the Town is getting some redevelopment and that's great news for the area. But Sheffled City Centre already has a shiny new mixed use leisure and shopping development (it opened in April last year). Yes, Barnsley is getting a new public square and market hall but Sheffield City Centre already has that too (it opened over four years ago).

Could not have put it better myself. Really dont know what the other poster is getting at. "Greedy STH..." they cry. Damn right they are greedy. They are a major hospital trust in the bottomless financial pit that is the NHS. They need to ensure they have every possible income and reduce every possible outgoing they can. Yes, the voluntary cafes have done great work but the fact is times have moved on. Volunteer services always has a major flaw. Its staffed by volunteers. Volunteers who may not want to or can be available to provide a more flexible and improved service that us consumers demand these days. Plenty of other opportunities for people to keep volunteering in and around the hospitals for those who want to. Fact is the overall WRVS tendered fairly and squarely - they unfortunately lost.

Because the law states that they people can bring most accident injury claims up to three years after the date or up to six years after the date for property damage. For some issues such as claims for children the time for bringing a claim can be even longer (right up to their 18th birthday) or cases of historical long term disease. The point is, insurance will still have a duty to either pay out if it as a valid claim or in the alternative they will defend and fight it through to a trial. That's what insurance is for. Its not one or the other. Its just two different parts of it. In part of my work I am dealing with claims against (now defunct) businesses going back decades. After much research we find who provided the insurance at the time and (depending on the position) will either get them to pay out or represent them in defending. Issuing of court proceedings is just the next natural step if a claim becomes stalemate and cannot be settled amicably. Even if insurance companies are involved, the proceedings themselves will always be in the name of the Claimant and Defendant so getting a copy served directly on you is normal. As others have said, the simplest thing to do is just pass it back on to the insurers and let them/their solicitors deal with it.