ECCOnoob

Are you being deliberately obtuse. What corrupt business practice are you talking about? Its a contract between company and self employed contractor to provide a service. If they fail to deliver on that service they have a legal obligation within the terms of said contact to provide cover to fulfill the duty or pay compensation monies to their customer for failure to provide it. I dont enjoy losing billable hours when I have a day off either. I dont enjoy having to pay out agency staff to cover when we are not able to fulfil our work demands. Hey guess what, I dont enjoy paying any outgoings from my company profits and in turn my take home income BUT its the costs of running a business. That's what these people are doing. Running a self employed business. Why are you finding this so hard to understand. Boo hoo. Life is tough. The job market is difficult. YES, it is for everyone. What makes these people so special? Despite what the stupid and misleading petition says these people are NOT parcelforce staff. They are self employed contractors. They reap the huge benefits of having that status and have no right to start moaning when they have to pay out the expenditure and take the responsibilities of doing so. What would people like you prefer. How about Parcelforce scrap this entirely, employ everyone and give them £7.50 a hour eh? Im sure they would be delighted at losing their opportunity to earn more than double each week. Hmmmm.

I am no expert in this field but surely it is not as simple as that. A bank statement showing money being paid to X company could be for anything. It does not necessarily confirm that the money was for the specific policy on that specific vehicle. Similarly, the phone number record or web history, again, that could be for anything. Someone could ring up and ask the time for all the court is aware. Unless the OP is able to get a copy of the call recording or a legally certified transcript I just cannot see that being enough. If I have read the OP correctly, the alleged offence is driving without insurance. The only real defence to that surely is producing a copy of the valid insurance certificate. That’s why the statutes have two offences for driving without insurance and a second one for failure to produce an insurance certificate. I would suggest the OP still seeks legal advice. The magistrates may well be “friendly” and less formal than a higher court of law, but it is still a court and they will be bound by the law.

Its average earnings between £45k - £70k according to the recruitment pages - so not far off. https://jobs.royalmailgroup.com/PFW/job/Ipswich-Parcelforce-Self-Employed-Owner-Driver-Ipswich-IP/337307801/ As others have tried to say before being shouted down, they are contracting themselves to provide a service. They are their own responsibility and just like anyone else who operates a business, if they fail to provide that service they need to either provide a replacement or compensate their client for the losses. The whole merits of people being allegedly "forced" into self employment is an entirely different issue. At the moment these people ARE self employed and they ARE signing up to provide services within the terms of contract. A summary of the contract is here: http://www.royalmailgroup.com/sites/default/files/SF_owner_driver_scheme_overview.pdf From a quick scan, based on the average number of drops/collections the base rate alone would be around £120 earnings each day (that's not including the top up payments for early/priority deliveries each day). So £600 each 5 day week just on base payments alone. How many sick days are these people having a year? ---------- Post added 12-03-2017 at 12:57 ---------- Oh and just for the record, shall we compare to the driver employees who may well get the benefits of holiday and sick pay but who only average a base rate each week of £290. How hard done by are these self employed drivers exactly?

Best not tell him that buses on the Totley route drive through Burngreave anyway. Im sure those drivers on the Dore route also enjoy driving through places such as Upperthorpe and Langsett. If there was any "humour" in his post he has certainly missed the mark.

Sheffield? You think this is just a local thing. You might want to travel around a bit. Also, "lack" of vocabulary? Perhaps some others might argue its actually using a more wide ranging vocabulary. These words are in the dictionary right? Just because some people find them offensive doesn't mean that others dont. Personally, I am not saying its right. BUT, there is no denying language evolves. 40/50 years ago saying the word bum/knickers on television would send people running in horror. However, racist slurs and offensive terms for women and homosexuals were bandied about without a care. Now using such words in any capacity are deemed hugely offensive but use of swearing has become acceptable. So..... who is right and wrong in these situations? ---------- Post added 11-03-2017 at 22:21 ---------- Also, another little interesting thing. I notice this thread seemingly is focused on "women" who swear in public. Now, IF this language is deemed so offensive surely the OP and others are not trying to argue that is perfectly ok for MEN to use it but not WOMEN?? Seems a very strange point to me.

Do you really think this is simply about the queen being given money to tart up her house???? Why dont you educate yourself about the Crown Estates and its monies. You will then then see that the "sovereign grant" generated from a % of Crown Estate monies to pay for the whole operations of the royal household is being increased to pay for the repairs. At the very worst, and at the most simplistic level all that is happening is a reduction in the amount of the remaining surplus CE profits going to the Treasury on this occasion. Boo hoo. Considering the Treasury has pocketed profits of 2.4 billion from the CE over the last 10 years, im sure they can take a small dent to pay for the maintainence of what is essentially one of their own trust properties. Exactly like Downing Street, The White House. Hillsborough Castle, Lambeth Palace and Bute House its an just official residence. Buckingham Palace is not owned by the queen. She cannot sell it nor profit from it. What is the problem?

Jesus. Its like talking to a brick wall. Firstly, for a 18/19 apprentice in their first ever job since leaving education £544 is perfectly adequate. Its not a new concept. It costs employers money to train people and take them on with little immediate return until they have developed suitable skills. I will concede that probably does not apply to the most basic of work in entry level jobs roles - however that is a decision someone has to make when they sign up. How many more times do I have to say this on this thread. We are not talking about the entire population of 18-24 year olds. Nor is there any realism in this wild assumption people have that suddenly at the age of 18 years everyone is kicked out of their home and requires their own place. I have never mentioned in my posts about "22 year olds" not having family to turn to. I have said the words "older". 22 is the start point. Obviously ANYTHING policy wise has to have a start and end point. Perhaps it should be 25 or 30. That seems the be the modern trend as to when people start to move out these days. The point is simple and I have repeatedly said it. For those few remaining people who are not: A protected person with a genuine homeless need A vulnerable person who requires ongoing care provision A person from a relationship breakdown or broken family group who has no accommodation OR A person who has been working for six months prior OR a person who has been earning NMW at least 16 hours a week They have a choice. Fund your own accommodation or stay put until you can afford to do so. Oh, and just for the record. My first job as a clerk was pre-NMW of any kind. I was surviving on around £460 a month. Lets quit this childish crap as if I have never had to live on a low income in my life. I still managed to pay my £100 shared house rent each month and feed myself during my training period before I earned a higher wage and could live more comfortably. People up and down the country do it their entire lives. Its part of the working life. We all start somewhere and not all of us can just sit there waiting for the state to do it for us. Now I am not wasting my time any more. My opinion is what it is. If you don't like it, fine. Counter it with a different one. But the childish personal digs about my profession, knowledge and ability can cease now.

Oh my god. Stop the world. I read the wrong line of figures whilst making a casual comment on an internet discussion forum. Do you really think I give so much of a toss. I made a mistake. It was corrected when pointed out to me. Get over it. The care system is not going to push someone out who they deem has no ability to earn their own means and no job to support themselves in their own accommodation. As I have said several times now, if they CHOOSE to leave the system and dont have any means to do so, that's their choice and their issue to deal with. I have also said several times now that there are exemptions to the policy. These exemptions are there to keep protecting those genuinely vulnerable or unable to manage to find accommodation through no fault of their own. If people actually bother to read my FULL responses I have made this clear. If people actually bothered to read the full details I have provided in the link they would see that apprentices only get the lowest monies whilst they are either under 19 years old or for those 19+ years old, in the very first apprentice year only. After that, they will be paid the usual National Minimum Wage and therefore will be in the same circumstances as those other 18-20 yr olds or 21-24 yr olds earning either £5.55 or £6.95 per hour. Since you are such an expert you can do your own maths on those. Now, anyone else going to have a pop about my career and ability to get this thread inevitably closed or shall we actually carry on with the topic being debated.

I stand corrected. My mistake - looking at the wrong column. £544 it is. The two choices still stand. So what if SOME of them are from the care system? Not everyone from care is totally incapable of living their life like a competent grown adult. Those who choose to leave the system face the same circumstances as any other young adult joining the working world. Those who remain unable or volnerable adults are still protected parties within the exemptions. ---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 20:07 ---------- Is that supposed to be a treat? You think I have not been out of work for periods in my life. Incidentally Anna, the talk of lawyers losing their careers due to advances in technology has been thrown around since the introduction of computers and semi-automatic case management systems 20+ years ago. The reality is very different. I am still working in a profession where the courts still cannot accept emailed documents over a certain size, solicitors offices refuse to accept service by fax and email and judges demand multiple copies of paper bundles for their hearings. We are still using pink tape, wax seals, certified and stamped copies of pages. We have only very recently started to use electronic disclosure (and even then only in extreme cases). Funding and costs is far more of a risk to my profession but that will just lead to lawyers working in different types of organisations away from a ye olde solicitors offices. I'm really not sure what you are trying to score points on but I am not playing ball. Dont start with personal digs just because I am raising debate that you dont agree with.

Ahhh. The poor dears. £544 a month all without any tax deductions - how on earth do they cope. They have two choices dont they. Stay at home until they earn a full wage or find a bedsit/shared room/one bed in their price range. Not impossible at all. We have all been there and all had to start somewhere. Its tough but that's life. You ask how to they find a place to live, eat and get transport? Exactly the same as everyone else in the working world. Anyway, since you have seemingly given up on bothering to read the rest of my post, I am going to give up with you. My point is clear. If you are choosing to ignore reading through it because im saying something you dont agree with, that's entirely your choice.

Firstly apprentice wages: https://www.gov.uk/apprenticeships-guide/pay-and-conditions As I say, minimum amounts set by government. Not made up by employers. Not at the mercy of some evil scrooge character. NATIONAL MINIMUM. If that's not enough to live on, they should stay at home until they can afford properly to move out. Secondly, if someone is in work earning full wages and "still cannot afford a place to live" then they have a problem. What the hell are they spending their money on? How on earth do the rest of the working population cope? As I have said before, if someone is genuinely in such a financial mess then further questions need to be asked. Unlike many older adults in the working world, the 18-21 year olds affected by any cuts will have a family home. Their parents and guardians are still supporting them up to any point they choose to leave (and since they choose to bring them into the world they should do). The proposals state that: http://news.sky.com/story/housing-benefits-cuts-plan-for-18-to-21s-revived-by-government-10788982 "...vulnerable people will continue to be protected, as will carers, families and those who have been in work for at least six months prior to claiming will be exempt, and those working at least 16 hours at the National Minimum Wage..." So, if they have worked for at least six months and are earning minimum wage for at least 16 hours a week they will not be subject to this cut Simple message for the younger generation. If you choose to move out and find your own place to live - get a job and ensure you work properly to pay for it. For those few remaining who insist on moving out early without sufficient means - that's their problem. No abled bodied, fully competent, healthy young individual with no specialist exemptions fresh from mandatory education should be in a position to immediately demand the state supports their lifestyle. That support quite rightly should be for those individuals who do have genuine issues and are genuinely homeless. You bring up my past career and I would say that I am very familiar of those people. Some of them were young persons the topic of this very discussion. They were people who had genuine family problems. People who had physical or mental health illness. People who had bereavements, children of their own or relationship breakdown which prevented them from living in their existing homes. They WERE NOT every tom, dick and harry who chooses to move out from a perfectly safe and available parental/guardian's home without sufficient funding to do so. Nowhere have I said that vulnerable people will be denied the support they need. Nowhere have I said that there will not always be exceptions to the rule. Those exemptions have clearly been included within a policy and services provided for those who need it. That does not mean that there should be blanket entitlement to anyone irrelevant of whether they can pay a home for themselves.

Do you even know what one is? You certainly seem to know nothing about anything to do with management given your silly questions on here. Now, back to your OP. Do you really think that a manager is not "fit for purpose" if they have to occasionally seek advice and support on specific issues from a suitable professional? What would you suggest should happen in the alternative? I ask again, do you really have a belief that a Manager should know every single thing about every single circumstance in their industry. How do you think that would be even practical? There is no such thing as someone knowing everything. That's a concept a small child even understands. Do you disagree with such?

If she is blame free and cleared of any wrongdoing in the death why shouldn't she be obtaining the new job. Just because SOME people dont agree with the verdit in the initial investigation does mean a persons record should be marked for the rest of their lives. The investigation took place. The decision was made. She was found clear of any blame. She is perfectly entitled to keep a clean record and carry on with her life and career. ---------- Post added 05-03-2017 at 23:23 ---------- What? I literally have no idea what you are on about.

Do you really think that people are expected to know every single aspect about every single circumstance in their field of industry? Im a fully qualified and trained lawyer but it does not stop me instructing Counsel to provide advice on matters. Consultants are just that. To consult with. To provide advice. Managers ARE doing the job by obtaining and if necessary acting on such advice when needed.

NO the can't. Have you ever run a business? Not every business and service requires staff at all times all year round. Shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, leisure attractions and special events have surges and drops in demand and the staff are therefore adjusted to suit. Christmas for example requires a hell of a lot more during its couple of weeks to say mid January and last week in march. We then have special events that happen only a few times a year. Seasonal work in coastal leisure attractions who may only be open limited periods each year and only have high demand during certain holidays. Behind all that will be the factories, producers, distribution and warehousing whose demand will also dramatically fluctuate during the year accordingly. You don't pay for staff to sit their scratching their backside all day. Perhaps all these anti ZHC campaigners would prefer it if employers recruited people on 2 day contracts instead. I'm sure that would improve things greatly. No temporary role is ideal but its work. Those who dont like doing it should look for something else and leave for a more permanent role. Its a fill in - always has been always will be. Its great for those with children and those studying at university. It is never supposed to be equivalent to a full-time career role and people need to stop pretending these jobs should be.

I dont think its much different to any other kind of celebrity endorsement. Its not much of a new thing. Jim Davidson has supported the tories for years and Kenny Everett famously did a routine at the Tory Conference too. Many mordern comics do try to be a bit more neutral and generally attack all of them. However, there is no denying that you cannot usually tell where their leanings are too. Over on the red side we have a wealth of Labour and most recently very vocal Corbyn supporters well and truely nailing their colours to the mast. Russell "comedian" Brand, hollywood Dahling Michael Sheen, voice of a welsh miner Charlotte Church and of course, the grand daddy of tory bashing himself Ken Loach. I think the whole satire/serious interview format is just an extension of all that. Rory Bremner I have always found to be very much a political satirist over a general comedian/impressionist. I would suspect that his audience members would feel so too. If say, Michael Mcintyre or Peter Kay has suddenly done a straight interview with an MP in thier show, that might be a bit different.

I would agree. That is why there are exceptions to any rule. That is why cetain people may fall within the "vulnerable" and "protected" categories. That is why there will be exemptions to any policy set. On the flip side, of course, that does not mean that there should be a blanket and unequivocal entitlement either.

Yes daily for 6 years when I undertook legal aid homeless advice and work for the court services. Have you recently? The world is not as simple as black/white. Or as these modern times seem to be - a battle between blue and red all the time. You assess, you obtain facts as to what the real issue is. You dont take the media and sensationalism at face value. You dont just accept one side of the story.

Hang on a second. Let my just put some substance to this sensationalist headline and unsubstantiated opening post. So, young persons 18-21 who are NOT living with their parents and/or NOT under the protections of the care system and/or NOT a protected vulnerable person and/or NOT within the exemptions to the government protocol are being denied housing benefit. That will genuinely effect how many exactly? Firstly I would question what exactly are these allleged "huge numbers" of immediately street homeless 18-21 year olds are doing with their lives. Surely at that age they are either: 1. working and earning their own money. 2. in university and get accommodation/support from their student loans 3. on a apprentice scheme and earning at least minimum wage 4. in the armed forces with accommodation provided OR for those unfortunate 1. Disabled within the protected boundaries receiving DLA/Allowances 2. Living at home with parent/guardian/Care Scheme So who does that leave? For those who GENUINELY fall outside of any of the above (which I suspect is nowhere near the exaggerated and dramatic predictions churned out by certain media outlets ) then quite frankly further questions need to be asked. As (quite rightly) said by one of the DWP spokespersons already we should not be creating a instant young generation of benefit dependants the moment they leave school education expecting their life to be handed to them on a plate. I have always maintained on this forum that unless you are one of the unfortunate people with life long debilitating illness or mental health issues NOBODY owes you a lifestyle. When you hit 16 you DO SOMETHING either by getting a job or carrying on education. When you hit 18 parental or guardian responsibility may legally stop but that does not and should not mean that people are entitled to be carried through life on the great benefits conveyor. For those "slipping through the net" there is far more to this than just finger pointing and shouting "nasty tories". Who is asking the questions about why these people are in this situation and what THEY THEMSELVES are doing about it. As usual the same old usernames on this forum get hold of the headline and and beat the same drum without actually looking into all the facts. Worse still is the opposition party churning out the same old stock responses instantly dismissing and condemming anything the government proposes without any indication of what they would do to sort the problem. All too easy sitting there on the moral high ground when not in power having to make the tough decisions.

A generic and unevidenced rant is hardly a substantial response Anna. Nor is your lack of any actual practical action YOU would take to fix it. Half the stuff you mention is OPINION not fact. Who says that high earners people dont deserve their salaries and bonuses? Some dont but plenty do. Plenty work extremely hard for their position and have responsibility and stresses that others wouldn't understand in a million years. You make your own way in this world. Dont like your job? Dont like your salary? - go do something else. Find better one. Study for advancement. Retrain. You are never going to have a society where everyone is equal - life and the universe is not like that. Face facts, Some are just lucky. Some are unlucky and are struck with illness or disability through no fault of their own. Some land from the stork with a silver spoon jammed up their backside never having to graft a day in thieir lives. Others make good and earn lots of money working up from shop floor to boardroom after years of hard graft. Some prefer not to take those steps, prefering the easier option in lower skilled, lower paid work. Some others spend their lives doing nothing and waiting for the state to pick up the tab for them. Who says that there is a genuine need for all these food banks? Just because the clearly biased Tussell Trust provides some statistics does not make it an unchallengeable fact. I would argue that compared to 20-30 years ago there never been such an abundence, choice and stock of high volume high discount food and household goods. Truckloads pouring into the vast warehouses called Tesco et al with so much of it so cheap that tonnes are thrown away from said warehouses and even our own cupboards. Would make those frugal housewives of the 50s and 60s shudder if they could see the excess, greed and wastage of a modern day consumer. Stop taking everything at face value all the time. Just because people CHOOSE use a food bank does not necessarilly mean that they HAVE to. Who says that all these poor people stuggling to pay the mortgage and rent GENUINELY cannot afford to pay. Perhaps if we had the full picture we would see what the real problem is. What exactly are they spending their money on? What sort of place are they living? Is such place beyond their means? Is such place excessively large? Are they trying to keep up the Jones? Are they by their own fault evicted from accommodation? Have they been offered help but refused? Do they have drug or alcohol issues which restrict themselves from somewhere to live? As "Tent City" and the embarrassing actions of Anthony Cunningham has proven twice now SOME people dont want to be helped even when offered. Its not as back and white as simply blaming those "nasty tories". As for the public sector and welfare state, what is your solution? Like it or not, cuts have to be made. If you really cannot see that, you really need to take the rose tinted glasses off. People are living longer. That is a fact. Perhaps we the people need to start making their own provisions for old age rather than expecting the government to do it for us all the time. Despite what people demand there is simply not enough money going in and far too many people taking too much out. Hardly rocket science to see what the problem is here. I have seen my tax return note. I have seen how much my reasonable salary tax/NI (in many people's eyes) personally contributes to lets say health or education or defence budgets Have a look next time its come through. You will be as surprised as I was to see that it bearly would cover the cost of an few scans or a overnight medical examination and nurse care Of course retirement age is increasing. If people are living longer, what do you expect? You dont seriously think that the net effect of longer life would be a longer state funded retirement did you? Work expectancy is bound to increase with it. Stands to reason. I would agree with you that many of the sectors cut are having some impact but something has to give. I repeat again that this goes beyond merely pointing the finger at the nasty tories for the society problems. How about PEOPLE take responsibility for thier actions. How about PEOPLE start making provisions. How about the Labour opposition government actually face up to their own and the wider problems instead of acting like a bunch of petulant children everytime someone dares to criticise them or instantly and snidely countering anything the government suggests regardless of whether it was actually the right thing to do. Sometimes a government has to make unpopular decisions which cause upset because it is just the right thing that has to be done. If a diseased patient doesnt want to lose an arm but a doctor knows it has to go to save their life what would the option be. As for student loans and massive debts, well perhaps if precious labour had not opened up universities as a free for all to every tom dick and harry regardless of any accademic skills or meritorious career path then maybe the funding would not be in such crisis. Free university should not be some automatic right to every single 18-22 year old as if its some expected right of passage. Fact is, most sensible degress put people into a better position than they would be without - Why the hell shouldn't people pay for their higher education given to them at great expense. Its the foundation for a better career. Its provided by one of the most open and accessible loan systems that ANYONE could ask for. You name me any other credit system where no matter what their background or income someone can access the funds and paid back at a capped rate suspended and/or written off for those who fall below a certain income bracket afterwards. Who says bexit is our decline? Again, that's OPINION not fact. Nobody knows what will happen. Despite being a remainer myself we are a democracy. The people have spoken. We now have to leave on best terms. There will always be devisions in society. You are making out like this is some new concept for goodness sake. Come out of your bubble. Racial tension, income gaps, young vs old, fear, insecurity, lack of trust in establishment are just part of human life. Its been going since the dawn of time and is not going to stop. Stop making out like this is a one party issue and lets get back to the topic in hand on this tread. Corbyn is killing the labour party. He is a deluded and spiteful individual who puts his own ego and close group of deciples ahead of the greater good. He cannot take criticism. He cannot admit when he is wrong. He has no clear direction and no leadership. He makes an embarrassment of himself and the party on a weekly basis and whenever he is faced with a challenge, retreats to the protective bubble of his yes men and party members whining about biased press and unfair treatment. He bangs on about membership and refuses to understand that they are not giving the feelings of the wider voting population. Even so called left wing papers show polls of labour tanking. Anyone else in such position would have gone long ago. Based on the 2015 total voter numbers Labours current "impressive" membership of 500k makes up just 1.7 per cent of the electorate. They are not the majority. Corbyn needs to convince the remaining 98.3% of the electorate. So far he is making a complete horlicks of it.

Let me counter your points a little bit. Firsty, putting aside any life long debilitating conditions and disability [which should quite rightly be protected parties] For everyone else, I personally find it disgusting that someone who has worked hard all their lives, fully paid into the system and managed to build some assets is forced to sell them just to be put into exactly the same home with exactly the same levels of care alongside someone who has chosen never to work a day in their life and not paid squat into the system. How is that fair? It should either be free for all, chargeable for all or at the very least two tiered with a choice. Those who choose to pay get better service, increased provision and better facilities. Those who choose not to pay get state basic provision and bare minimum. Sounds much fairer to me.

Fair enough. Well, new restaurants are due to open once The Light complex is complete so watch this space. In the meantime, Cafe Rouge has (in my opinion) a very similar menu albeit possibly less "upmarket" in feel than the Cote chain. Out of town on eccy road there is also Le Pierre which I have found to be very good too.

Looking at the posts on this thread I would strongly argue you are wrong. What exactly makes it so "rubbish". What exactly do you think its missing?

Why dont you tell us. Inform us of the facts and it might move on the debate. You obviously have a source with reasonings for your statistic.....right?

Firstly I would bet that half of those people would have at the very least access to somewhere to stay or in some cases even a place to live to call their own. I know more than well from my past career that many poeple with serious drink, substance abuse or mental health issues refuse help that is offered and fail to show up to their offered accommodation. Some have argued in front of me that they prefer to be on the streets with others rather than being isolated in some hostel or B&B because they have to abide by non drinking and non drug rules. Other serial attendees routinely abandon their accommodation prefering to loiter around the streets with easy pickings from gullible members of the public or becoming involved with minor criminal offences. No fixed abode does not automatically equal "street homeless". [...before anyone starts... this was something I had over five years of dealing with day in day out through legal aid and the courts so I have plenty of first hand knowledge...] The bottom line is that nobody is denying that there are not SOME genuine homeless people who need help. A lot more help than they currently get. However, we are talking about this particular attention seeking "homeless" crowd who for some stupid reason have decided to set up camp on a traffic island. They are not people in need. They are not in desprate for food, shelter and basic provision. If they were they would be in a safe and suitable environment and accepting the help which I have absolutely no doubt they have been offered. Its a protest and does nothing to address the real issues. In fact, it detracts from it.