ECCOnoob

So what if there are no buses. There are no trains running on xmas day either but that does not mean that access to walk along the rail tracks should be free for all. Those who choose to ignore the signs deserve any fine they get. What the hell makes you think you NEED to drive in a bus lane on Christmas day anyway. Was the traffic so bad you had no option but to deviate from the normal carraigeway? Out of interest, what else do you think should be free for all just because its christmas day? pavements?? service roads?? pedestrianised precincts?. Do you stop at red lights in your world or just proceed through if there is nobody is using the other carraigeway? Free for all init. Anything to make life more convenient for you right?

Maybe they shouldn't bother at all then. See how much publicity the charities get then. Whether we like it or not. Celebrity and Royalty has a value. Its a commodity and a very signfiicnat one which a charity can get absolutely free. Most of them would kill for that sort of offer and that's exactly what they do. ---------- Post added 23-12-2017 at 16:28 ---------- We could all do that though. Why dont you have a pop at the wider population. I mean what about all those who spend their money in Waitrose, House of Fraser or Sainsburys rather than Aldi and Poundland. What vile beasts!! Just think all those obscence amounts of money could have been donated to worthy causes..... right?? What about all those sickening people who go abroad, I MEAN actually go abroad on a plane and everything just to go on holiday. Scumbags! Why cant they all just lie in a pool in the back garden and give all those hundreds or thousands of pounds to starving africans instead.... right?? Come to think of it, the worst of all, what about those people who spent £8k, £10k, £12k on a car. I mean how elitist is that. Those disgraceful people sitting in their own personal vehicle driving past in their protective bubble ignoring their fellow men waiting for the bus. Should be strung up. I mean, dont those out of touch lot realise what a homeless charity or mental health service could do with that sort of money! I mean that's the issue here isnt it??? Its all relative right??? No...? Oh sorry, I forgot that on SF there is this cloud of reverse snobbery where only those over a certain income bracket must be attacked and criticised for spending their own money how the hell they want to.

Start by getting a full time job maybe? Even on the absolute lowest levels of minimum wage for under 18s a full time job is equivilent is more than that a month. For the majority of working adults its more than double that a month. If she really MUST work part time hours then take step two. Rent somewhere cheaper. Just a quick search on one property site gives 500+ places to live below £400 a month in that so called profiteering, scummy private sector. Maybe its the council who are the profiteers eh?? . People in similar situations manage all the time. Why is this woman so special.

Welcome to the real world of industry pal. Something many of us have had to face for decades. Time to wake up and get out there away from the closed shop of the taxi licence mafia. That pesky competition and open consumer choice really is a bitch isnt it.

Given that the majority of those machines are inside or attached to the bank itself I would guess nearly all of them will survive. For banks like HSBC and Barclays its all about the machines. They dont want the fleshy bits behind the counter because they cost money though wages, benefits and pensions. If anything I would have thought it is going the other way. Come to think of it, I can hardly think of any cash machines on fargate which are owned by an independent company for profit. I think "Link" are seeking a bit of publicity to be honest.

Good. Its an internet debate not a political broadcast. People are entitled to their various opinions including those who choose to criticise and those who choose to jest. "Senistive subject" I am not so sure about. Lets be frank. This is not a new story. Beggars and Homeless people have been part of society since year dot. Can we also just all agree for the sake of this forum that not ALL beggars are genuine. Not ALL those sitting there are street homeless. Just the same that not ALL critical commenters on here are uncaring and not ALL wealthy people are corporate tax avoiding monsters.

Actually Anna if you bothered to read the articles properly you would be aware that its Corbyn's actions in the house by demanding that hekcling MP should be "called out" and his fellow Labour MPs publicly naming them which is the catalyst for all this online abuse. I further read that several of the vile postings are proudly displaying the hashtag "JC4PM" which is clearly of his his many disciple deluded cult groups. I also have absolutely no doubt that his most powerful cult group Momentum had a hand in fuelling this torrent. Jeering and Heckling in the house shouldn't be accepted I would agree but annonymous cat calls in debates is one thing, to turn it into a demand for open public abuse is a completely different thing. You cannot honestly sit there are say that there is no evidence these are Corbyn's trolls. Its absolutely laughable. It was CORBYN's own party MPs who threw the bucket of sludge and CORBYN's own support groups who have started the fans.

Because just like every other outsourced service a private company can run it for a hell of a lot cheaper than it would be to employ directly. Whenever you are talking about taxpayer money its always about the bottom line.

So what? Those making them out as laughing stock should be ashamed of themselves. Never mind merely the weather IN Lincoln, what about all the thousands of people who would have travelled to it from many different areas. When the Met Office are posting severe weather warnings and national motoring organisations are saying to only travel if absolutely necessary what exactly are the event organisers supposed to do. Just sit back and stick their fingers in their ears? Yes, we in Sheffield may have got off rather lightly from the predicted forecast but many other parts of the country didn't. Why the hell would the already stretched emergency services want a major event likely to put thousands of extra vehicles on the road taking place on a day like that. Why should the traders be forced to set up and travel themselves in potentially hazardous conditions to an event where footfall could be hugely down due to adverse weather. Some people need to look at the bigger picture.

Thats the interviewees problem. Give em enough rope and they will hang themselves. Its certainly not up to the interviewer to terminate early and walk away. You really think a programme maker or even the public audience will accept 10/15/20 minutes of dead air because an interview is terminated on the basis of someone not liking the answers.

Firstly being a private company is sod all to do with anything. Lets not pretend that Royal Mail was perfect when it was state owned. Secondly, next day delivery is usually 9am or 1pm working day dependant on what the sender has used. There is an extra charge for some guarantee Saturday delivery but do you know if they have used it? If they have it might still arrive today but just later if there is backlog. I would suggest you double check with the sender to see how and more imporantly exactly when it was sent. All of the special delivery options will have time cut off.

Eh? I dont know what you mean. Are you talking about having to spend a minimum spend to get delivery for nothing or are you talking about having a minimum spend to order plus an EXTRA charge?? If its the former then the answer is obvious. Delivery drivers costs money. Fuel and vehicles costs money. "Take away" gives a clue to what they offer. You take it away from them as oppose to eating in. If you want it delivered to your door and are not spending enough to get it for nothing, its your choice to pay the extra charge or not. They are not going to want their drivers tied up delivering a single burger or one pizza without getting something back in return. Even more so when there are other orders stacking up with multiple items.

God sake here we go again. All the focus on just what someone sees on BBC One. You do know the licence fee pays for 1001 other things beyond that dont you? ITS NOT JUST ABOUT THE TV SHOWS.

I know that but you are completely missing the point. This "poverty" which those "shocking" figures are based on is a median average salary and the JRF report is based on their own ludicrous definition of 60% or less of that median being classed as "poverty". That boils down to any individual earning up to £16.5k still being classed as in poverty. Get towards the top end and it clearly isnt. In fact, is clearly rediculous. Can you not see that their deliberately using such a broad definition gives a hugely inflated estimate of what the "poverty" situation looks like, perfectly fits their agenda and is calculated and worded in such a way to grab more headlines. I wouldn't argue that those at the bottom of the scales on minimum wage may well be struggling. However, those on a more manageable sum of £15-16k pa are not so much. Scale that up across the board, and add on couples who may have a combined household income of mid-high £20ks and you would hard pressed to agree any of them are what should really be defined as "in poverty". ---------- Post added 05-12-2017 at 14:52 ---------- Completely agree. This is what I dislike about any of these sensationalised articles. They never bother to report the full facts or even where the data is gathered and how its interpreted. Stats can be minipulated to prove or disprove anything. But of course that wont stop the papers splashing their stories to get more copies out of the door.

Nice choice of stats and wording chosen by the JRF to get their headline grabbing attention. "relative poverty" "median figures show" "average" this.... "appear to show" that.... Sorry, not buying it. So, we are defining a working person having a household income of 16k a year or £32k a year for a couple as the threshold for "proverty" now. REALLY!! Low income? - yes. Struggle? - yes. Should be better? - yes. Proverty? - I dont think so. If they really wanted to make a point why dont they stop chasing the headlines and focus on what the real issue is called. Inequality. Should have called it by its proper name with focus on the proper issues. All this trying to peddle horse crap vague definitions and undefined figures to be used as some anti-tory anti-austerity shtick just makes people see right through it and disregard any genuine point they tried to have.

I really dont understand what you mean. Wifi enabled does not mean that your device will automatically connect to a network. Even more so if its a network that is only activated once a user has gone through their registration (either by way of paywall or otherwise). My phone does it all the time. I sit down somewhere and it pops up with a list of possible wifi networks I COULD connect to but that doesn't mean I am. If you are really that paranoid about being allegedly tracked turn off your phone settings until you are somewhere you feel more secure. To be honest, given the amount of CCTV, facial recognition, bank payment records, loyalty card records and gathered marketing there are already ample opportunities to be tracked and monitored just by leaving the house. Wifi networks should be least of your worries.

Who cares. We are part of a global economy now. A significant amount of this very population is very heavilly invested in those private companies. Our jobs, our lifestyles, our income, our spending and our own pensions are all part of it. Perhaps if the national industries 30 years ago had actually embraced change instead of continuing with their status quo of government interference, shoddy work, lazy employees and union stranglehold we might have been in a better position than we are now. Family silver? The state most of those industries were in prior to being flogged off, they were more like a broken pee stained chamber pot.

Only until the government tasked ITV and SKY with providing all the other broadcast services currently funded by the licence. Then watch those prices rocket. All to easy to take things for granted until you know what is actually involved.

I would strongly suspect they already do hence why they have a massive commerical and distribution arm. If it was not for the BBC archive half of the channels on freeview and sky would not exist. The BBC im sure would also be quite content working commerically as long as they dont have to maintain those pesky government set directives such as providing non profitable and minority interest religious programming or childrens programming or educational programming or schools programming or parlimentary broadcasts or minority language stations or 60 ad free local and national radio broadcasts. Im sure they would also be quite happy to not bother with all the specialist services such as AD and Subtitle, signers and translations services which the licence contributes towards or the freeview platform or the general broadcast infrastructure or the national broadband services or community television services which the licence fee monies all make a significnat contribution towards. Some people need to be careful what they wish for. I dont know how many times I have to say this, the licence fee remit is far bigger than the simplstic attitute of just what people see on BBC One and a few headline stars.

What the hell are you on. Government financial support?? If you cannot pay the tv licence costs then its simple. Dont watch live broadcast television. When watching live broadcasts for free is a human right with mandatory government provision come back to me

Makes sense to me. I think most adults realise there is no such thing as "FREE". Something or someone is paying for it. Advertising revenue being a secondary purpose of the service is not so much as a "catch" but just "obvious". Its exactly the same reason why every single hotel, coffee shop, bar and restaurant offers "free" wifi but strictly subject to providing your email address and registration.

Yeah. You keep dreaming that pal. Compo the Comrade will be dead and buried before any realistic prospect of enforced nationalisation of privately owned companies along with the billions of pounds neeeded to pay them off would even be drafted let alone signed into law. As for any prospects of the population allowing government sponsored theft of privately owned property from those who legitimately and contractually paid for it. :hihi::hihi:

Its called 2017. Time to drag yourself into it.

"Affordable" what a wonderfully ambiguous choice of word. Affordable would be deemed perhaps two bedroomed houses available to buy from as cheap as £45k or maybe apartments for rent from as little as £280 a month or perhaps for those really struggling affordable would be room shares from as little as £25 a week. That sort of thing right?? That's just a quick sample from the private sector from one google search of things available all over this city. For those seriously looking for a roof over thier heads I have no doubt there will be even more options to be found. Lets not forget for those in desprate need they would even get housing benefit discount or rent paid for in any event. Even in the so called impossibly expensive greater london area there are still apartments for sale starting from around £80k all within 10 mile radius of Kings Cross Station. Housing is always going to be expensive. For decades its been known as the most expensive purchase people will ever do in their lives. This is not a new story. Yes housing costs can and do sky rocket but they can and do crash through the floor just as fast. For all the endless tales of woe it never alters the fact that thousands and thousands of these these so callled hard done by young people still somehow manage to get on the property ladder and buy a home. For all those droning on expecting the government to bail them out, I have to ask, is it REALLY the case of not being able to afford a home OR more the case of not being able to afford what they would like to. If its the latter, then unfortunately, tough. The world does not owe people a lifestyle. Cant afford something you like? Look harder or choose somewhere else. Its what millions of us have had to do for generations before and will keep doing through future generations.

Breadline? A working person who can somehow manage to afford a run a car but struggle to pay 70p a week for their parking permit really needs to give their head a wobble. Breadline and poverty are words bandied far too easily these days.