ECCOnoob

Not they dont. They show who is good with witty soundbites, who has the biggest ego and who can shout the loudest. Its an unwanted american import popularity contetst. Its all about personalities and performance which does very little to inform the viewers. Its ludicrous that a political leader can seriously get across any sort of cohesive message in a one hour shouting fest sporadically placed between commericals for dog food and bog roll. TV debate is an extension to lazy engagement of politics for the ever increasing social media generation and a collection of dimbo dumbos. People say they want to see and hear their leaders. People say they want the facts. People say they want more engagement but cannot be bothered to put the effort in. TV debates is falsely described as some form of engagement but shows zip. IF people were genuinely that interested in what politicians do and that interested in having a say they would watch the debates, committees and parlimentary sessions which are recorded and broadcast each and every day. If they really wanted to be engaged as much as they claim to be, then people would actually input into public committee sessions, open surgeries and corresponding with their elected representatives. BUT, of course they dont. They just skim read the headlines and lap up the sensationalised TV fodder. Personally, Im quite glad that May has chosen not to take part. In depth political interview and analysis is what we need not some glorified talent contest under twinkly lights. An informed electorate making a decision on the facts is what we need not people voting for the ego and drama. Realistically and rather sadly it wouldn't surprise me if she caves in and takes part, particuarly as she will be hounded by the media organisations with their gimmicks such as a man dressed in a chicken suit (Daily Moron) or the dark art tactics of shunned TV executives until they get their way and keep their advertising revenues up.

How many "independent" restaurants do you see setting up inside multi-million pound shopping or leisure complexes? Have you any idea what the rental and services charges are for such buildings? There is a reason why most "independent" restaurants - no matter how good are generally off grid and in less commercial locations. The most popular chains pick the most popular locations with the highest footfall. They are the ones who can afford premium sites in large complexes.

That's true but the Australian Woolworths Limited who own the national chain of supermarkets and Big W department stores are not connected at all to the UK/US F H Woolworths company. They are a totally different company and different operation. It seems that the Woolworths we know never registered their trading name in Australia decades ago and so someone else took it. Similarly the South Africa named Woolworth stores (which are actually more like an M&S) and petrol stations are the same thing. A totally separate company who just stole the name because of a legal loophole. Really, these companies that remain around the world are not proper Woolworths and are totally different to the failed model we had over here.

Firstly defining them as "awful" is highly subjective. Just what did you expect to see there? This is Sheffield. Its on the Moor. Big companies dont just pick out a location on a whim. They research their market. They research the likely income bracket of their likely customers and pick a location to suit. There are already several "premium" level restaurants in the city. They are hardly going to open up second branches. For once can we just stop the default Sheffield mentality of putting down anything and everything that ever gets opened in this city. We just cant help ourselves. Its a wonder developers bother at all. Cant wait until Ikea opens and everyone slags it off for not being as good as Leeds or Nottingham store. ---------- Post added 25-04-2017 at 20:22 ---------- There are two entrances. You can either enter half way down the Moor and up the escalators or you can enter the back way which is through an entrance where the back of Debenhams is. The building site part only affects the road and square around what was the subway. Pedestrians can still walk around it all.

I would be really surprised if this happens. I just cant think where they would fit in the market. We Brits seem to do this a lot. We stop shopping somewhere, we complain that its old fashioned or not tendy or not selling what we want. We flock to the discount superstores and supermarkets or internet shopping outlets quite happily. THEN, suddenly when a high street giant closes down we suddenly get filled with some faux sense of loss, banging on through rose tinted nostalgia about how much we will miss it and its such a tradegy. What did we think was going to happen when we CHOOSE to stop shopping there? IMO the last few years of Woolworths decline was just inevitable. What was it selling. What did it really serve on the high street that could not be offered much much cheaper and much much more conveniently by your average supermarket or even convenience store. The only possible way I could see it making any realistic sort of come back would be to go right back to its original roots. A large multi-department store in prime locations offering a wide range of goods at a discount store price bracket. Piddling little stores selling a few CDs, a bit of household tat and sweeties just wont cut it.

Those with life long physical or mental health conditions. Those who are medically incapable of any form of work. Those who have been made medically redundant through industrial accident or illness. Those who are elderley and unable to manage their own affairs. Those who have drug or substance abuse problems and are incapable of managing finances. Those who are victims of crime or abuse. You know who I dont deem "genuine".... Serial breeders who choose to make babies expecting Nanny State to sort them out. Serial jobless who sit on their backsides taking their dole and state funded accommodation awaiting forevermore until something they fancy comes along as oppose taking whatever is necessary. People receiving in work benefits screaming poverty despite earning at the very least a national minimum and taking advantage of support services when they COULD manage on their own just like generations before them. Now for your information I am nowhere near retirement age or what somone would deem "old age". My "benefit" from the welfare state has been very trivial. You have no business telling me what I "know" about the current political and financial position or making snidy insults just becuase I have an opinon different to your own. You know nothing about me - who the hell do you think you are to make such wild assumptions. I have never had social housing. I have never received JSA. I have never had EMA. I am still paying my student loan for my degree and worked paying taxes since I was 18. My first years of work was before any NMW even existed. I am not having any kids, rarely using a GP and paying privately for most of my healthcare and dental. I invest in a private pension to support me during retirement and have chosen to pay money into both life assurance and income protection to support me should anything go wrong that stops me from working or makes me medically incapable. I have sacrificed amounts of my earnings to invest and protect should things go wrong. Its what everyone who is capable of work should be doing. I have lived through the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s and I have seen plenty of boom and bust times come and go. As I have said seveal times on this forum. I have previous career experience dealing with homeless and welfare law so I have a better understanding than most of seeing the system from both ends. Not just the face value that the media likes to portray. Now, enough with the insults. This is an opinon forum. As usual you take things far too personal and start flinging out the nasties. As I said in my earlier post to Sibon. We disagree on this point. End of the matter. ---------- Post added 23-04-2017 at 23:49 ---------- It wouldn't surprise me. They have to counter it somehow. Someone on national minimum wage with full statutory is around £1480 a year cost to the company. Given that bank holidays do not have to be paid an employer I wonder if Corbyn is confident that people will really want to be forced to lose a further 4 days pay a year. Its over £200 a year for those on national minimum. Think how much it might cost people earning over and above that .

Your anti-tory anti-business anti-wealth ranting suggests you have a lack of understanding how the commerical world and someone's own earned income works. Even more so when you are trying to comapre what a private organisation spends its own monies on against taxpayer funding. Clearly we are never going to agree and this thread has been derailed enough. Since you so robustly suggest it, I will now go back into my bubble and cease this diversion off topic.

Yes they are. I'm glad we agree on something. They could seek help. They could try to cut their costs by looking at their finances and cutting down or getting rid of something not essential until they have a better position. They could seek to increase their income through overtime or a second job or by selling something. They could in other words TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for themselves. Times are hard when you have a low income and you sometimes have to do without until you can afford more. That's life. IF someone really cannot afford basic food provisions when they have a roof over their head and utilities then their problems are far far beyond the simple excuse of blaming the government. There are people in GENUINE need who deserve support.

That's correct. Its just gone from one large private company i.e. the Coop to another large private company i.e. Dignity. The Coop have made a nice £43m profit overall for selling their various cremotoria. Interesting how there seems to be a lot of bile about private enterprise taking over the world of death but nobody really took interest the good old' Coop (despite the fact that its a national failure with various scandals occurring within their Executive Board). Yet somehow another private company takes over and it becomes a big issue. The Coop is certainly not the friendly face of the high street anymore. For all its ethicial PR and is community spirit pretentions - Its interesting to note that just like that other shining moralistic example company Starbucks, the Coop has been doing some stealth purchases of ye olde family funeral parlours, keeping the business name, logo, documents, staffing, web presence as unbranded as possible to make people think they are going with a local enterprise as oppose some big player. With respect to the OP, I would fully agree with the comments that this step does seem to be very undignified and unnecessary. It seems from the recent Star article that they are blaming Health and Safety and have also said that the policy was actually pre-exisitng back to the Coop days of running the cremotorium. They seem to have now made a full statement: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-crematorium-owners-dismayed-at-the-public-reaction-after-asking-relatives-to-remove-tributes-from-dead-loved-ones-memorials-1-8507691

NEED or CHOOSE. There is a big difference. I have to ask, IF the food banks were not there, would they starve to death or perhaps prioritise their money more? Are these people using them through absolute desparation or simply to take advantage because they can? People survived perfectly well without them not too many years ago. Why this sudden necessity. Its certainly not as simple as blaming inflation and the nasty tories all the time. Jesus, we have had far worse inflation than this and now have a copious supply of pile it high sell it cheap food from a abundance of discount stores and supermarkets that those on a low income could have only dreamed about 20-30 years ago. I have not always had a reasonable income and neither did my family. When I was growing up as one of four kids my mum worked short hours on low pay. She could not afford to go to supermarkets filling up a trolley back then. There were no pound shops or discount megastores. She got her pay packet one day buying what food she could afford to. She cooked very economically and made everything she bought count. Everything was stretched and little was wasted. Its what people managed to do perfectly well for decades. I makes me so angry when those on low income bang on about so called "poverty" and so called "hardship" as if its some new concept all the fault of the current government. Times have ALWAYS been hard for the lowest earners. The difference is, unlike some people today, they didn't go to the nanny state for handouts expecting their lives to be handed to them on a plate.

But it wont be a few more days off for the vast majority of "workers" whom Compo claims to be the voice of. What about all those people who have to work each and every bank holiday as part of thier normal shifts. You know, those people who work in essential services such as healthcare, police and telecoms, broadcast and other essential utilities. What about all the other staff that have to work so we can selfishly enjoy our extra days off, its hardly a surprise that the masses like to spend their bank holdays doing things like Shopping, Dining out, watching sports, drinking or visiting attractions. So, that obviously requires transport workers, hospitality workers, retail workers, chefs, bar staff, stewards, ground staff, security... Maybe if everything was closed down like Christmas Day and Easter on bank holidays the wider populus might not be so keen then on their "extra" holidays. Lets get real here. Its a typical desprate soundbite from a failing politician. Its means nothing and will come to nothing. I have never been particuarly happy with being forced to take national holidays at a time when everyone else is off and when I dont necessarilly want to. I certainly have never been of the opinion that such enforced holiday is even necessary in the modern world. The days of the great works closing down for the summer are long gone. Perhaps Corbyn and his Trotsky club need to get with the times. If I had my way I would much rather employees get an increased minimum holiday allowance to use when THEY want to use them. "Bank Holidays" (at a push, with the exception of limited relgious events) should really be a part of history.

But this is exactly the point. Why should retail workers get shorter hours on a Sunday when the rest of us dont have such a choice. Most people who work weekends work their normal shift hours. They dont close down business offices or police stations or hospitals or call centres or hotels or heavy industry or IT departments or public transport operations or leisure facilities or broadcast operations early just because a Sunday. Life carries on for thousands if not millions of people. It is just a normal working day. I ask again, why is retail somehow protected. I never to this day understand it.

Why? Why does everything have to be a copy of what Leeds has got all the time. Besides, Trinity Leeds was an upgrade on an existing indoor shopping complex, namely City Plaza. It would only be like Orchard Square being massively extended and upgraded. If anything Fargate should really be aiming to have the footfall and quality of stores as Briggate, although as Sheffield Retail is moving further towards the Moor in any event, the most appropriate place for any investment really should the NRQ area.

Because in 2017 not everyone's lifestyle neatly fits into a 9-5 monday - friday working world. Some people actually have things to do at the weekend other than some rose tinted delusion of everyone quietly going to church in the morning and sitting around for a sunday lunch in the afternoon. In what is supposed to be a secular society no laws should exist that tell a private business when it should and shouldn't open just becuase of outdated demands from those worshiping some mythical sky being. The 1994 Act was a start but didn't go far enough. Its clear that the 6 hour compromise we have now was was only after a major battle with the Trade Union rent-a-gobs, religious leaders and deluded keep sundays special brigade. Scotland suffers no such restrictions so why should we. Its just a day. One out of the seven. My work demands and international clients mean that my "weekend" happens to fall Sun/Mon. Some of my colleagues covering Middle East areas they have theirs even later on in the week. Im sure my business is not alone and there will be thousands of others whose work demands cover periods 24/7 and have their own non work days at various days during the week, meaning their sunday is just a normal working day. Where is the protected status of their jobs? Why does all this fuss only seem to apply to retailers but any other Sunday workers are ignored. The point is simple. Why the hell should I be forced to suffer the of inconveneince limited trading hours on a Sunday just because some archaic law.

When the man behind the counters in the ye olde grocery shop individually fetching and carrying all the items a customer selected got replaced by a vast self service store I wonder if the same screams of concern were heard about the poor shopkeepers losing their jobs. OR Maybe people acutally embraced changed and accepted that things move on a bit more easily back then without such fuss. Nobody is reinventing the wheel here. Its nothing new in the big progression of life. As technology and demands advance, some jobs inevitably become obsolete. However, they are replaced by a wide range of new jobs which didn't exist before the technology and demands was created. Round and round it goes. ---------- Post added 14-04-2017 at 12:42 ---------- I disagree with some of your points. The "service" you speak of its the choice to avoid standing in a long queue and check out a handful of items yourself. The "gains" you speak of it the ability make it financially viable for a company to have a store open 24 hours a day 5 days out of 7 giving the customers the choice to do their shopping well outside of what would be deemed normal business hours. It also gives the ability to be more flexible with what your floor staff do and where they work as there is an alternative option to move them away from just sitting on a till. There is also the final and more blunt point that it allows for strict controls of a the number of staff a store needs to recruit keeping profit high and overheads low, which clearly translates in stores offering such cheap prices and discounts to keep them competative with their rivals. Sometimes its about the bigger picture for a company overall, not just the black and white point of a checkout and someone working on it.

Perhaps some others might argue that if the Council stopped with thier ludicrous attempts to micro manage every aspect of traffic with their ever increasing controls and restrictions people would not breach the rules so often. Perhaps some others might argue that if the alternative diversions to these routes were not so rediculously long winded and time consuming then people might stop taking the risk. A clear case in point is poor sods who have to try and get to Blonk Street from Spital Hill every day. A straight drive through the Wicker with, admittedly, a little bit of bottle neck due to the lights has now become a long winded treck up to the parkway, round the loop and back down again which, dependant on traffic can be anything from a 5 minute add on to a 15 minute add on. What about the simple trip from say, Calver Street to Arundel Gate. You cannot even drive in a stright line down the road. Oh no, its a trip up Cambridge Street, through Cross Burgess Street and round the loop to get back to the exact same point from where you came from in order to eventually turn left! No wonder people get frustrated and do what they want.

Ok. Fine. You stick to that theory and good luck to you. Im sure you wont get outbid time and time again.

Now, to try and avoid a never ending story on this can we just agree to disagree. You seem to think that Sheffield house prices are totally excessive no matter the property type, size, area, or selling agent. I say that claiming something is overpriced is highly subjective and despite your assertions there and plenty of cheaper alternatives for those prepared to look hard enough.

No I am not an estate agent. Are you? You certainly seem sure of your assertions if you arn't one. As for your second question, I am not a mortgage advisor either, but since you are asking, a quick calculator gives a monthly payment of around £1,570 a month. I dont think its a ludicrous prospect to suggest that anyone buying a £300k home will be of a certain income bracket so again, WHAT IS YOUR POINT. £300k in an open market could get you anything from a 2 bed apartment in the most wealthy part of town or a 7 bedroom house in the suburbs. Depends on what purpose or location the buyer is looking for. Its just the same as £50k price which could get you anything from a studio city centre flat to a 3 bedroomed house in the suburbs. Its all highly subjective. We ALL buy what we can afford which best suits our needs. That basic has not changed whether its the 60s, 80s or now.

Yes, but we are not in the 80s anymore are we. Life has moved on and we have had 2 property bubbles and busts since then. Did you also conveniently forget when all those people with their wealth of affordable properties also had to deal with 20% plus mortgage rates. Time to take the rose tinted glasses off. Nobody is reading the Sheffield Property Telegraph these days. Try Rightmove, Zoopla, on the market, purple bricks to see what is out there in the real world.

You need to look harder. There are properties on rightmove in S11 at 1 million. You are not trying hard enough. ---------- Post added 11-04-2017 at 21:07 ---------- I still dont understand your point. Yes its 425k. So what? You are looking at the biggest properties in the most affulent and sought after areas. What makes you such an expert as to what is and isnt overpriced. Sellers will price their home to whatever people wish to pay for it. That's how the housing market works. If nobody is bidding the price will fall. If people are beating a path to put a bid in, the prices raise. Its not complicated. There are plenty of OTHER cheaper properties on right move. If someone cannot afford to live in S11, tough. Look elsewhere. I would like to live in Knightsbridge or Dubai but we dont just get what we want do we.

Buy something cheaper then. Plenty of semis for much less than that. Why are you so shocked? Some areas are more popular than others. Some areas are more affluent than others and have a higher price tag. Happens everywhere in the housing market. I really dont understand what your rant is supposed to be about, with exception of some passive agressive dig about the city not warranting such prices.

^^^^^^^ I second the comments of my learned friend. Its a big problem with a lot of the civil service organisations. Not just the DWP, but the Court Service and Land Registry too. antique systems, antique methods too many stubborn mules in the management who dont like change. I recently had to misfortune of attempting to rectify a DWP overpayment and was bluntly told that "we dont have scanners". The government talk big of reforming the world of PI claims forcing solicitors to use electronic systems and ever chopping the fees recoverable, but somehow that never seems to translate to their own house. 45 days correspondence backlog one of the major courts has at the moment. This is despite massive increases in court fees which have been recently exposed to be significantly more than the actual costs to administer a claim and designed to make a profit to the court service. To think that some of those people who think lawyers are all scum and hate the legal system smugly predict and threaten that AI and advances in technology will be replacing us soon. :hihi:

Yes. That's why the Labour party are currently dying on their backsides. They dont know the basics about what their alleged core support i.e. the so called "working class" "man of the people" "real proper jobs" sorts actually focus on. These are the sort of people who actively read the Daily Mail, Express and Sun as genuine news publications. The people who openly pass judgment on funny looking foreigners. The people who take sensationalised stories about scammy doleys and child benefit claimants with 10+ kids and government departments wasting billions of taxpayer monies on pg tips and NHS monies being wasted on a black and ethnic minority asylum seeker paedophile accommodation units and hate preachers being handed out council grants etc... etc... AT FACE VALUE. THEY BELIEVE EVERY WORD OF IT. In fact, there is far more cross over between the salt of the earth, low income, so called "proper" working class and the hard core right wing fox hunting loving Chipping Norton set than people would ever like to admit. Compo & Co can prattle on year after year about the NHS and social mobility and fair society and fair education all they want, but until they actually take their head out of the sand and actually face up to what their party is really supposed to stand for, they will keep going nowhere.

Anna, you need to stop taking things so personal. I talk of the masses. If you ask the average man on the street whether we should fund the nhs or a brand new railway to london OF COURSE they are going to say the NHS. No lay person is going to even begin to understand the complexities nor the sheer amount of things that a government has to fund. Sometimes there are boring and unglamourous things that on a headline appear wasteful and unnecessary to an average joe. That is why I say that "public" i.e. the masses i.e. the man on the street are dumb. They are and I include myself in that. Its just a well know turn of phrase to set out my point. Its that reason why when a newpaper runs with a sensationalist headline such as "xxxx government department spends £300k a year on paperclips" or "xxxx organisation spends £500k on tea and coffee" the man on the street screams in horror and starts with the predictable comparisons as to how that money could be used to fund the care workers or more nurses. That man on street never bothers to consider nor even cares as to specifically how that spend is broken down or how many people it applies to or how big the ratio is etc... etc.... NO, they just do the reactionary ill informed response and outrage. The same applies to any, even absolutely miniscule hint towards spending taxpayer monies on any possible project that isn't social care or NHS. Its immediately followed by screams of "how many doctors would that pay for...." "....that would be xxx pay rise for nurses..." I dont know how many more times I have to say it on how many different threads. Government spending goes beyond merely the NHS and Care.Some of us welcome investment in other things and quite frankly dont care what the funding COULD be used for instead. Sometimes things are just needed which are not necessarilly the populist vote. They are still needed. £120 billion pounds for the NHS this year Anna. Based on our current estimated population that's around £1,835 for every single person. Second largest expenditure just below pensions with an 18% share of all the total government spending. Out of curiosity do you know that in 2016 the entire spend on ALL transportation was 3%. When will people ever be satisfied. How much is more for the bottomless pit? What level of neglect to everything else should be tolerated to keep feeding it in your opinion?