ECCOnoob

Must have skipped over all that in your opening post eh?

...and the counter point is that nobody has proven that there is any link between deregulation and the rise in attacks. Nobody has proven that the specific chemical restrictions which were subject to the regulations were actually in the attacks which have recently taken place. We also dont know whether the restrictions within the regulations would have actually been of any use in stopping the attackers from obtaining such substances. Its all speculation. The article and this thread. The point is the way this thread has been titled and the opening submissions by the OP is a clear dig against posh tories being allegedly out of touch. A submission which is completely nonsense and totally irrelevant to the issue. The OP can backtack all they want. We all know what meaning they were trying to get across by their choice of words and despite no evidence to back it up. Now they have been challenged they have made a u turn so big it can be seen from space. Some people need to realise you can't simply blame everything on those nasty tories.

Nice change of subject there. Not going to bother with any clarification or explanation of your opening post then? Well since your ask, if legislation is fit for purpose then yes of course I would be in agreement for it to be reintroduced. However, since there is NO proof that removing it was the cause of the increase in attacks; NO proof that the acid substances used in the recent attacks was subject to any restricted list within the former legislation; NO proof that the purchasers of the substance used in the attacks would have been restricted by the former legislation; and NO proof that bringing back exactly same legislation back would change the number or extent of the attacks there is little point. I ask again what mistake has the government done? What catastrophic event has happened as a direct influence of its removal? Nothing has been proven. You are just speculating time and time again. Yes of course the government has an opportunity to do something about it and they are. However, I have said multiple times now that further investigation is required into the OTHER factors involved in the attacks before considering the best form of control and preventative legislation which will be of any use. Availability of the product itself is not the sole issue.

Firstly, put your ego away. I certainly do not "know" that you a right. A fact that should be absolutely clear to you by my strongly countering your post. Secondly, why do you actually try reading yourself. Your phrasing of "....This is what happens when...." Is perfectly clear what point you are trying to submit in your post. If it wasnt for the tories changing policy this would not have happened ....right? What other meaning did you intend by your wording exactly. Would you like to take the opportunity to backtrack? Now, lets turn to the article that you choose to post. I have clearly pointed out the important line. There is no proven link between the change of policy and the rise in attacks. So what mistake are you referring to that needs correcting? Advisors can advise what they want. Campaign groups can campaign all they want. Doesn't necessarilly mean they are right not that their suggestions are practical or reasonable. The government's job is to decide what they see fit. Did you not read the rest of my post. "Acid" refers to 1001 substances that we all use every day. So, the government restricts things like bleach, sulphuric acid, industrial paint thinnners and caustic cleanrers then what? "Acid" for use in "Acid attacks" can still be obtained and cause just as many injuries through everyday cleaning products, laundry detergents, toiletries and even some food products. What do you propose - ban it all? Have every 20 something adult stopped and seized because they are carrying around water or pop bottles which COULD contain acid substances? Make little old ladies apply for a licence every time they want to buy some bog cleaner? For the last time, the Product is not the issue here. The attackers will always find a way to get their hands on a substance which COULD potentially be used as a weapon. Banning or restricting certain products will not make that go away. For those who chose to commit such crimes the know that the same devisation and severe Injuries could be caused be something as simple as a bottle of alcohol, acidic food product or a even boiling water. The government focus needs to be on the other issues. The gangs, the targets, the culture, the motives, the convictons and stronger sentencing to deter others.

An important sentence from the quoted "exclusive" article. "...While it is impossible to link the rise in attacks to the change in law, ministers are likely to face questions as to why they removed the registration of sellers..." So its impossible to specifically link the law to a rise in attcks and ministers are "likely" to be questioned. So no proven link exists and minsisters.... you know might be, well we dont know but suppose they could maybe face questions. Very clear. Ah well, any excuse for a good old tory bashing. Get it published. These big scary words of "acid" and "corrosive substance" can and is used to cover a whole spectrum of substances ranging from mere washing up liquid, washing powder, household cleaners and toiletries. It then moves into the more severe products such as toilet cleaners, disinfectants, bleaches up to the industrial level sulphric products, paint thinners and chemical sprays. Its just not feesible to regulate and restrict household essentials which can and will be picked up in every supermarket and corner shop. Think about it, technically if I bought a giant plastic lemon filled with lemon juice and shot it in someone's face that COULD be deemed an offensive weapon. But my crime and use of it as a weapon, shouldn't automatically mean that everyone goes OTT and every pancake day people have to apply for a licence in order to buy one. This is not an original story. There is plenty of newsprint that confirms that these sort of attacks goes back as far as the Victorians. More recently, look at the yoyo patterns of attacks during the 80s then stats which show another rise and fall during 2005/2006 through to 2011. These regulations were in place then, but still a three told incresae according to some reports. Why would that be if these regulations are so vital to stopping it?? Read some of the narrative about similar attacks taking place in other countries around the world and lets look at the specific communities, locations, racial profile and alleged motives where the biggest increases were. Lets try and figure out why there was a significnat drop in numbers after this time and most importantly why the figures are rising now. That is the real issue that needs tackling not just banning the availability of a bottle of 50p bleach or a tub of paint thinners. The Product itself is not the whole answer and not even the biggest issue. To take some simplistic broad brush approach that a change of Tory policy is the primary cause of these attacks is just nonsense.

Says who. Broadcasting of any kind costs money. Its not just about what you see on the screen. There is a whole infrastructure that goes with it. There a huge amounts of public services and MANDATORY provisions that broadcasters have to adhere to which would otherwise be neglected becuase a company would simply not be prepared to take it on as it makes no profit. The fact that in the circumstances it happens to fund the BBC to keep it advert free is irrelevant. We are not paying for a BBC licence. We are paying for a licence to watch live television broadcasts. If the BBC was abandoned or advert free it doesn't mean that the TV licence would go too. You will see that many countries around the world have TV licences despite their television services being filled with adverts and the sort of commercial influential bias that the BBC nicely avoids. If you dont want to watch live broadcast TV then fine. Dont have it and you can avoid paying the tax. Nobody is stoping you owning a TV monitor and using the internet, DVDs, streaming services or USB sticks. You could even read a book or even listen to the radio which in fact, could be a brucie bonus since our tv licence fee monies also pays for vast amounts of radio stations too. Some people need to be careful what they wish for. Yay, lets abolish the TV tax they chant. Perhaps they would be suddenly crying if we followed say Malta, where they switched off ALL their free to air tv or like perhaps like The Netherlands where it comes out of general taxation. Nurses or Television out of taxes. Can see that going down well eh?

I very much doubt that any news anchor just sits there reading from an autocute. The majority are journalists in their own right and do vast amounts of work (some including having direct collation and writing of the lead stores) to get it ready for air. In fact there are various videos online which show just how hard juggling all that information and changing scripts, whilst talking on camera, whilst having producers shouting in your ear and keeping an eye on what's happening on your monitors and also keeping an eye on a very exact broadcast time clock is a lot lot harder than most of us would ever think it. If we apply a simple approach to Newsnight one could argue that that so called "holding people to account" is nothing more than reading out a list of questions. Newsnight also has all day to prepare a small selection of stories based upon content that the other BBC news teams have already prepared for broadcast multiple times over the day. IMO the presenters are doing the same job. They are both journalists and anchors of a news show. The only difference is the broadcast style. One is faster paced general broadcast for the masses, the other is in depth, selective items for a more detailed analsyis for a more reduced group of viewers. With the exception of a handful of bimbos (male and female) who present things like Channel 5 news or those ITV 2/3/4 quick fire things, the majority of newscasters are proper journalists undertaking a range of work, including senior level editorial duties behind the scenes.

Good god no. Sheffielders could not possibly cope with having a load of arty farty LGBT black ethinic disabled media luvvies investing money and building their head office in this city. In fact whilst we are at it. Lets get the whole creative arts and legal quarters pulled down and made way for some more steel works or dug up for coal mines.... just like those proper jobs for real people. God forbid there is any attempt at progress in this place. That just wont do.

I can only assume that HS2 is going to be running electric trains. Therefore if HS2 is coming to Sheffield the overhead wiring must be there to service it. 2+2 go together surely.

Who really cares. Its 3 minutes difference because we have to have a branch spur line. Its still a good 45 minutes less than the current "fast" train we have to London and nearly 100 minutes less than the some of the off peak trains we have to London. I dont care what people say. For travellers that makes a huge difference. The fact that Sheffield will finally be able to get to London in just over 1 hour and 20 minutes is what this city has been screaming out for. It will force the electrification work to happen - something which has constantly fallen off the agenda over the years and will force track and station redevelopment to happen which it has to complete in order to get the thing running. Enough with the tit for tat Leeds v Sheffield. Enough with the NIMBYs. Carry on like this and it will still be possible we we will be scrubbed off the map altogether. That will inevitably lead to any associated "improvements" to the area (including electrification) suddenly falling off the list too. That would give people something to cry about. Its announced. Its confirmed. We are still part of it. Happy face time.

Good grief. I know its each to their own but what an existance. We are all mortal. We are all gonna go one day. Live a little. Its that fat, salt and junk that makes it taste nice. Most people eating processed food KNOW it doesn't have any nutritional value, but every now and then just like most desserts, alcoholic drinks, snacks and confectionery its just a nice thing to have. Its gives a treat and a bit of pleasure every now and then. Happineess is also a part of living too. As for public loos, I really do think you are taking things a bit extreme. Unless you walk round all day every day sealed in a bio suit wearing gloves 24/7 your hands, face, mouth and body is covered in bacteria all the time. The body deals with that. Its what its designed for. Given that the majority of public loos are inspected and cleaned multiple times each day, I would wonder that many of them are cleaner than in some people's houses.

I would 100% agree with that BUT its also important to ensure someone keeps their eyes on a potential imbalance between those at the lower end of the public sector and those at the lower end of the private sector. As someone who has been working in the private sector for most of my career I have heard on more than enough occasions some colleagues upset because they have NO payrise whatsoever year on year let alone 1% one. They have no decent pension scheme. They have little opportunities to flex time, flex working or special leave offered to SOME of those in the civil service. They have no acccess to incremental pay scales, overtime payments, paid sick leave or other financial protections offers to SOME of those in the civil service. That can cause its own imbalance. If there is action to be taken against low pay, it should be in ALL sectors and ALL industries. This constant focus on the "public" sector from certain political sides and the unions is doing nothing more than create friction and a loss of sympathy from those working in similar roles on the private (and often non unionised) side. Whatever Hammond said or however clumsily he said it, that IMO is the point he was trying to make. For all the press hubub and all the left wing jumping up and down he MAY well have a good point.

Technically yes. Even more so if you live at the right side of the city. However, that takes a lot of planning and hitting the right timing. Its not so always so quick if you have to travel to Doncaster station first then wait around for a connection, the overall benefit of a quicker run time between Doncaster into London is lost. Having travelled both routes very often I would also say that the ECML seems to frequently be subject to delays, signal failures and train technical faults much more when compared to the MML. I have no doubt that a good reason for that is because the ECML is much much busier with far more trains running. However, from my personal experience I have seen far more chaos happening at Kings Cross than I have when travelling through its next door neighbour St Pancras. I suppose the choice is up to the individual. Personally I can live with a 30 minute extra run time for the convenience of one station, one train and IMO a much more stable and reliable service. I would fully agree though that electrification of the MML will be most welcome as its long overdue.

Time and time again this issue comes up and I just dont understand it. Its 2017. Why should the council be spending precious resources on things that most people wouldn't use. This is not the bad old days of backyard outhouses and communal public baths. Every house has facilities. If you are out and about you will have access to hundreds if not thousands of publicly accessible facilities all over the city. If you are shopping all the major department stores and Orchard Sq has one. If you use any bar/restaurant or cafe they will have to have one by law. If you are travelling through the city both interchanges and the station has them. If you are visiting a business, every office block has them. If you visting a public facility, the town hall, all council offices, the library and galleries have them. If you are visiting a cinema or theatre, all of the facilities have them. If you are visiting the university or college buildings all these facilities have them. If you are a tourist, all the hotels have them. If you are in the city and not crossing any of the above paths then quite frankly what are you doing here? Back on Topic, I think (subject to being themed and priced right) a bar would do well in that location. Its just close enough to both ends of the city to catch trade and would give quite a unique location and style to the other offerings. This sort of conversion of former public loos has worked well in the past in other cities. No reason why it shouldn't here.

This all just seems too ridiculous for words. Throwing away the drinks - what a complete waste. How on earth does the OP think the foods gets wrapped up into the boxes and wrappers in the first place - its by human hands. Staff will have thier supposedly disgusting, infected fingers and palms all over it. For goodness sake, cooks have to use their hands. Every plate, cooking tray, utensil, piece of silverware, glass and cup will at some point come into contact with someone's bare flesh. Its why professional catering has hygene standards and strict rules. Honestly, of all the places to be concerned with hygene Mc'D would be way down my list. I can say from my own past experience that if the OP saw the inside of most professional working kitchens (even the ones in the poshest venues and deemed perfectly "clean") they would be totally shocked.

Like others have said. Food gets prepared by human hands. Cooks and servers dont spend all day putting gloves on and off. We all hope that the majority of working in the industry have basics of hygene just like most of us at home would do the same. I really do think you are making a lot out of nothing.

Wow, you really are full of it. Stats that is, which of course you will happily provide me with verified links for. So, you can unequivocally evidence that London Club and Bar and Grill failed solely because us penny pinching locals complained about the costs eh? Really? Couldn't possibly for one second be that perhaps they were found to be crap restaurants. Interestingly, you do love bringing up that place. Several times you have mentioned it now. Did you have shares in it or something?? You certainly have a bee in your bonet about something since these 6 whinging posts are all you have contributed since you joined this forum yesterday. Now if those bars in the places I have mentioned are so shoddy, what on earth are they doing showing their faces in your wonderous Leeds eh? Could it be perhaps, people do actually frequent them? As for your totally irrelevant list of even more brand names, why dont you bother to READ WHAT I HAVE ASKED YOU. Here is another reminder: What exactly in "vareity" is lacking. Name me a type of venue (not just some brand name) which you think Sheffield is screaming out for? How many more times do I have to say it. I could not give a toss what brands Leeds or Manchester or London has compared to Sheffield. Its what PRODUCT is being offered or in the case of your supposed argument lacking which is the crux of the issue. Now are we going to address it or are we just going to play a tit for tit game of listing companies.

Cant we at least wait until someone from an official source says what is happening. All we have so far is "I heard its...." and "facebook says...." Nothing on SYP website or Twitter. No mention of any appeal for witnesses. Nothing reported on BBC SY or The Star. We dont know what it is yet. I dont think we need to be hiding in the pantry quite so soon.

If you are not being obtuse you could also include things like Leopold Square, Millenium Square, Tudor Square, Kelham Island and Ecclesall Road. Go on I'll bite. What exactly in "vareity" is lacking. Name me a type of venue (not just some brand name) which you think Sheffield is screaming out for?

Only countering your Sheffield bashing and your anti-sheffield drivel. No I dont want every street to be like West Street and that is the whole point of my posts. There is lots more to Sheffield than West Street and lots of things that cater perfectly well for the over 40s. People need to take a walk around and open thier eyes to see what there is. If you READ my post you will see that I have said we already have a selection of premium restaurants and bars in the specific locations where the trade is and for those who CHOOSE to use them. The point I am making is that just becuase a "premium" level brand turns up, it does not automatically mean that everything else around it is inferior. People need to face facts that no matter how trendy or desirable or aspirational a venue, Not everyone wants it. Not everyone will choose to use it. We are not sheep. To seemingly write those people off as if they are some lower class is obscene. Listen mush, not everything in your fabulous Leeds is so great. I am very familiar with the city and some drinking holes are complete dumps. JUST LIKE SHEFFIELD, Leeds has some posh parts, some trendy parts and some completely run down parts. Quite frankly I could not give a toss what bar chains Leeds has compared to us. We have a very good mix which caters perfectly well for the population we have. Sheffield has never been and never will be a tourist hotspot except with the rare exception of specific events, and for anyone to have some deluded desire that it will be is nonsense. Enough with the willy waving.

Could not agree more. People like what they like. Taste is a wholly personal thing. People always start wetting their knickers because Leeds is getting some so called "premium" brand that Manchester and London has......and? Jazz it up all you want its still just a chain pub. Its like when certain outlets open up and everyone jumps up and down that Sheffield should get one too. Perhaps a little research would show that most of these things are all owned by the same company. A case in point is the "premium" brands Miller and Carter or Browns. For all their pretension a quick google would show that they are owned by exactly the same company who owns the more looked down upon Toby Carvery and Harvester. There is loads of decent nightlife in Sheffield for those who can be bothered to look beyond merely what they see on West Street. We have plenty of decent bars around. We have several of those so called "premium" bars in the specific places where their footfall demands.We have independent cinemas (long before Leeds had theirs), we have an out of town leisure park filled with all the gaudy neon and giant american style portions you can fill your face with, we have a selection of craft beer and real ale houses, we have a strip of independent ethnic restaurants for those seeking a different cuisine, we have a collection hipster style cafe-bars filled with the beautiful people, we have a mini spitalfields filled with all the wine bar yuppie crowd and we even have our own wannabe Shoreditch area just a quick walk out of town complete with its obligatory shipping containers. What more is lacking? This constant one upmanship against Leeds and Manchester all the time is tiresome. If people have some genuinely substantive criticism of Sheffield nightlife I would like to hear it. However, "its not as good as Leeds" or "they have x brand and we dont" just doesn't cut it. Moaning for moanings sake. ---------- Post added 09-07-2017 at 14:03 ---------- Maybe one could argue that people of Sheffield are more savvy than those of Leeds and Manchester. Perhaps they are not moronic enough to fall for such "trends" and marketing. Nor would they be so stupid to pay excessive london prices for what is basically chain restaurant food. Also if you seriously are going to state that the nightlife in Sheffield is like what you would find in Barnsley and Rotherham you need your head rattling.

Oh right. So the election results are all fake are they? Sorry everyone. I stand corrected. JNewton has educated me. Corbyn won. He is the prime minster. Everyone in the nation loves him. He is the saviour of this country and we are all going to live in a wonderful fair and equal utopia filled with fairy dust and pots of gold. My bad.

How does it? Are you blind to what happened exactly one month ago. Despite his surge in popularity and his alleged increasing supporters (a lot of which is fuelled by faux celebrity endorsements and horse crap undeliverable policy soundbites in any event), when it came to the polls and population had their say Corbyn fell short of a majority by 64 seats and lagged behind the tories by 56 seats. I have said earlier that we all agree that May took a battering but irrelevent of that Corbyn failed to deliver even when going up against supposedly the worst PM and Government in decades. If he cant beat that, what hope would he have against a more popular Tory face and during a brighter period for the nation. I have said before. He still has a huge mountain to climb and preaching to his disciples is not going to change that position. Unless something dramatic happens (even May being ousted as leader....which will just be replaced with another Tory) the next scheduled election will be May 2022. Lets see if Corbynmania can last another 5 years.

I would agree to a point. But they still failed. I dont think this is necessarilly about denial. Yes TM took a gamble and got battered. Yes TM lost a majority. Yes TM is very likley to be for the chop after Brexit. But nobody can ignore the numbers here. No matter how "successful" at getting the message across it wasnt enough. This was despite going up against a PM who is supposedly detested by the masses.... In an age when her party has allegedly destroyed the social sector and NHS with their cuts.... Her party whose former leader was the instigator of the mayhem of brexit....... and despite having party membership numbers just under 5 times that of the Tories, Corbyn still fell short and by a long way. The numbers are clear. The tories were 8 seats short of a majority. Labour was 64 short of a majority. To get an uncompromised path into No10 Corbyn would either have to increase his seat wins by 64 at whenever the next general election will be or try to form an alliance just like TM has done. That of course is even more difficult as TM only had to negotiate with one party and 10 members. For Corbyn he would have to try and appease at least 4 different parties and 64 members. That is not an easy task and despite what the left wing media print or his deluded followers think, it ain't going to happen tomorrow. PM in waiting? Weeks away from becoming PM? Really?? Why cant we all pull our heads out the sand (me included) and just state the truth. They both failed. They are both marmite politicians and too devisive every single time they are polled. IMO they both need to go post bexit and pre 2021 if this island has any chance of restoring sanity.

Is it "badly designed" or is it just busy?? Its like a lot of places. They get full. Places cant always magic space out of thin air. I would agree with the other poster that one of the more least used car parks is the upper sainsburys one. Other than that, its just going to be a case of being patient.