ECCOnoob

How many more times. This is not about losing a library its about losing THAT particuar building. You have just said in your own post If that's the case its orginal purpose and future purpose are very different. The accommodation required to house ever increasing computer terminals and less books clearly is different too. Therefore, why does it need to be kept in an ever increasing age, difficult to maintain and not fit for modern standards building. I am not going to waste time commenting on the ins and outs of HMRC offices or my trust in the council. Its totally irrelevant. We are talking about a building.

What the hell has my politics got to do with anything. I am stating facts. The building has dwindling usage year on year. The buildings facilities are outdated, not compliant for disabled persons, not what is expected from a modern library service all housed in a ageing shell with ever increasing maintenence and running costs. THOSE ARE FACTS. WHY should taxpayer monies be used to keep the thing propped up and modernised IF it would be cheaper to sell it to a private developer and build a new, cheaper, purpose made modern library facility which will be lower costs to run long term. SCC money is not infinite and there are more vital services which need it. You still have not answered my question. This is not about losing a library. Its about losing THAT particuar building. Why can't the library and gallery be elsewhere. Better to have the building preserved by a private developer than losing it altogether would make sense wouldn't it? This constant negative attitude against private developers just boggles the mind. The Old Boys Grammar School and fomer education offices could have easily sat there rotting away but thankfully some of those evil scum developers restored and created a new space and business to the area. The listed HSBC bank was another one that could have been abandoned looking like a blot on the high street but thankfully Tesco moved in and kept the building alive. We had the old Post Office as mentioned earlier, those University types got it but praise the lord they did and kept the building standing... See a pattern here. You might want to have your delusions about these precious and vital buildings but its private money keeping them going not taxpayers.

15% drop in users in 2015 6.5% drop in users in 2016. 21% less useage in just 2 years. You might use it on a weekly basis but why would the new library building stop that? I ask again, why does it have to be in THAT building. ---------- Post added 22-11-2016 at 22:28 ---------- Because a private investor will be responsible for putting up the money for the vast expense required to bring the building up to modern standards. It means that the building will still stand there looking pretty which seemingly as the main thing people are so concerned about. I would rather have that than dwindling local council monies being used for little or no purpose which will lead to continuing drop in useage, ever increasing repair bills and eventual complete closure. As someone else has said, people are already screaming about the Old Town Hall sitting there decaying with no sign of investors wishing to buy it. Do people want another one of those?

Thank god it is becuase nobody else seems to want to invest in this backward thinking rose tinted place. They are more than welcome to keep doing it.

The "people" are not using it enough. The facility is not up to standards expected. Its not about supporting a city library service. Its about why it HAS to be in that SPECIFIC building. Cities close down and re-open library buildings all the time. They do it with Leisure Centres, Community Halls, Civic Offices and Support Facilities all the time. Its called evolving and updating. PS: Did Graves leave the legacy of the central library to the "people". Work started on it being built in 1929 - Graves might have chucked in money to set up ONE of his several citywide galleries on the top floor but its hardly the same as controlling the whole building or its future is it? How many times is the legacy of Graves going to be used as some block against anything and everything the council try and develop or sell off.

Its not fit for purpose. Less and less people using the service as it is, less quality of service provision going forward will make that position even worse, eventually something has got to give. An article in the Star recently showed Central Library had a drop of 6.5% lending this year on top of a 15% drop last year. Keep going at that rate and tell me that a business in the real world would not be facing closure altogether. As usual, becuase its public purse, everyone screams that its a vital service and more than that, it must be kept in their exisitng building despite the fact its totally outdated in terms of facilities, access and standards Who is going to keep up the maintenence?, who is going to pay for all the improvements? who is going to put their hand in the pocket to get the building up to the required DDA compliance? Its back to the same old argument. "it looks nice" is just not enough. Anyone can scream and shout about preserving some treasure until they are told to pay the bill. Suddenly people lose interest when that subject turns up. ---------- Post added 22-11-2016 at 22:03 ---------- Well said. People just dont get it. These things cost money and looking pretty doesn't pay bills.

Couldn't agree more. We really have the same problems with some of our clients. Even the best quality hotel in the city is nothing more than a mid-range chain facilities. Its nowhere near good enough. God help people when there is any kind of big event on. Rooms sold out all over. Last time one of my client's had to taxi in from the Tankersley Manor every day - that was the nearest place I could find above a Etap/Ibis.

No but he was perfectly happy to criticise the Government's rebuttal of the contents of that tweet. Farage failed to be voted in 7 times as a MP. He is a self serving loon whose own ego and attitude outweighs any credibility outside of the brain dead hillbilly republican crowd. As if on this earth he is ever going to be in a position of diplomat. Insulting, vulgar, cowardly, ill informed and offensive. _ Yeah great attributes those for a negotiator and represenative of this country. He is doing nothing for the benefit of anyone other than himself and his career. Quite frankly, I dont think the government response to him trying to pretend he is someone of state importance was firm enough. He is playing at being a minister of state and embarrassing the country in the process. He is a nobody and deserves to be thrown back under the rock he crawled out from. If he smashed his skull on a few boulders along the way that would be more the better.

What do you mean open more? It does have many other operations which are not just there for tourists to gorpe at. I will concede its not a wholly like for like comparative but the point I am trying to make is that it is a simple calculation of income, outgoings and expenditure. The Crown Estate is the income The Royal Operations are the outgoings The net profit goes to the public purse. This time round, the outgoings increase to allow the palace renovations. The Treasury still get some profit, but just not as much (temporarilly). The point is that the work needs to be done and as I have explained several times now, it is NOT coming directly out of the public purse. That, is unlike the Houses of Parliment renovations which, as someone else pointed out earlier, IS coming out of the public purse and will have far more impact on taxpayers becuase its buildings dont put anything into it. Any attacks on that? No - Royals are the target as usual.

Recoup what? What on earth are people not understanding. The Palace belongs to the crown estate which puts millions of pounds into the Treasury every year. The costs of repairing the palace will be coming from the royal subsidy from said crown estate. Nothing to do with taxpayer having to cough up anything. God sake, its nothing more difficult than a company making a reduction on their shareholder profit to increase outgoing budget to pay for repairs to company properties.

Funny that because its a summary of exactly what is stated on the Crisis website as an interpretation of the main homelessness duties of a local authority. It was also the exact criteria that was used when I was dealing with homeless files with my old legal aid firm. But hey, if that's "complete garbage" what the hell do I know. ---------- Post added 20-11-2016 at 21:52 ---------- What a shame that down to Earth "in touch" dutch royal family are assessed at one of the most expensive to run. Oh and just to help with the maths on how it may have an impact to ordinary taxpayers, at the last census, population of Netherlands was approx 17 million. Population of the UK was approx 64 million. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/europes-richest-royals-you-not-4989100 The Dutch royals have an estimated fortune of £131 million from investments in oil company Shell and real estate including Castle Drakensteyn in Holland. King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands have reigned since 2013 when Queen Beatrix abdicated. Aside from being the fourth richest royal family in Europe the Dutch Monarchs are also the most expensive. According to a study in 2012 by Herman Matthijs, professor of administrative science and public finances at Ghent University, the House of Oranje-Nassau costs the country's taxpayers £31 million a year. That's more than any other royal family in western Europe. Personal allowances for King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima are thought to be somewhere in the region of £5.4million a year, while the cost of official visits and overseas tours is estimated to be around £20m.

In a nutshell, its a legal spiel for people with no assets or income, receiving benefits and have become homeless through no fault. These are the ones who are given temporary accommodation or the highest priority.

I woud certainly agree with you. That is a Government Department which I think needs some fat trimming. Whilst I would maintain that the Monarch and Head of State Functions should be at the Palace, do we really need every single civil servant and parlimentary function being based within lavish historical buildings around Whitehall. Even more so when that, as you say, IS actually coming direct out of our pockets. Westminster buildings dont generate income to the Treasury. The Royal Estates do. That is a big difference. Just same old story really. Media minipulation and the Queen being an easy target.

Acutally, I have just seen the source which inevitably has been hammed up by the Daily Mirror and Independant. That factual source is "Shelter says estimated figure is....." I think the key word is in the quote. Furthermore, these are people who DO actually have a roof over their head and are in taxpayer funded hostels and temporary accommodation schemes. Not a great situation. Very sad for the people concerned but not exactly cardboard box under a railway bridge is it.

Would you sell your own house to pay for the upkeep of your place of work? I just cannot beleive some of the absolutely moronic and ill informed comments all over the press, social media and forums about this story. Its absolutely clear that 90% of the posters have no idea of what the Palace is used for and what it represents. Clearly people have no clue of how its financed or what impact that has on taxpayers. The Palace is the OFFICIAL RESIDENCE of the reigning monarch. IT IS NOT OWNED BY THE QUEEN. Yes, she lives there, just like the president lives in the white house and the PM lives in Downing Street and the soldiers and officers live in their Army Barracks or every other Prime Minister or Head of State lives in their own respective Official Residences during their terms of office.. It comes with the role. The palace is also a working building with offices of state, administrations, military and civil functions, the venue and accommodation for official state visits and formal ceremonies, a public attraction and barracks. We can kick her out and move her to her privately owned house but then what. What are we supposed to do will all those official operations that are still there. The building would still need repair and still needs a function. Despite what the moronic "off with their head" brigade chant. We have a monarchy. We have official state business around the world. They need a workplace and there needs to be somewhere where visting heads of state are accommodated and offical engagements run. What do some people want, an official visit taking place at the local Berni Inn and the Queen and officials working from some shared office complex in Luton. The crown estate has approximately 12 billion in assets and made over £304m profit last accounting year. The queen's cut of that is 15% with everything else going direct to us taxpayers. That put over £208m into the Treasury. Over the last 10 years the figures show over £2.4 billion has been generated and paid into the Treasury from the Crown Estates. Now, that % to the Queen is temporarily being incresed to maintain one of the CROWN ESTATE properties. You know, to keep it standing, to preserve it as part of the profit making Portfolio. Hardly seems an outrageous thing does it. Considering we have to year on year bail out the the flabby, mismanaged, wasteful, overused and overprotected bottomless pit called the NHS, I am very grateful for the money earned from the Crown Estates and certainly have no issue with their own profits being used to repair their own assets. "taxpayers paying to repair queen's house" my backside. Some people need to get a clue.

What sort of things do you want to see? Some of my favourites are Gusto on Norfolk Row, Philpotts, Tamper Coffee and Luck Fox (if you are looking for cheep and cheerful).

Deliberately playing devils advocate here is there not a flip side to constantly reporting and tittle tattling. For example the article posted and video. All over that page do I see the words "..appears to be" "..is apparently" "...footage is unverified" This particuar tram driver could be doing absolutely nothing wrong and the poster of the video could either be completely misreading the position or making false statements. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, for that tram driver it will have an impact. This is seen in other situations. Two people having a fight, from one angle it seems that a man attempts to strike a woman, but from the other angle it may ACTUALLY be that he is defending himself or even trying to calm said woman down. Wouldn't stop someone from the wrong angle making a false report against him. Those shouts from next door could be perfectly innocent but someone earwigging and mishearing could turn them into something else and innocent people are suddenly embroiled in some police investigation. Of course, we have the most famous of the lot. The rapists and child abusers. SOME were absolute monsters and deserved what they got. Other completely innocent people had their lives and reputations totally and unjustly ruined by rumours, gossip, and assumptions made by people totally unaware of the facts or those wholly seeking to cause damage. Reporting is one thing, Reporting anything and everything with an encouragement to do it even more surely has to be with some caution. That reporting will always have consequences for those on the receiving end. Even if they are totally innocent. When serious accusations are made against a person or organisations it makes headlines and can fill media outlets for days. When that person or organisation are found innocent it rarely makes it before the middle pages and nobody mentions it after 12 hours. Sometimes people never can recover from that sitatuation.

Whilst I am sorry for the staff losing their jobs I can't say i'm surprised at all. Its been years since I stepped foot in the place. Most supermarkets or Rymans will offer the day to day basics. Anything more substantial for the office we simply order in from a contract supplier. Most of the time much cheaper and delivered to the door. As for electronics I would most likely go to an online supplier - some of their prices for office machines are very far from competative. Just seems another sad case of not evolving and not keeping up with the competition.

Since when was reporting the news about giving "backing" to something. Its about reporting facts. Brexit happened and the news reported it. Trump happened and the news reported it (....still is reporting it). A broadcaster is perfectly entitled to give opinion and predictions. Neither of which stopped any mainstream broadcaster reporting any facts of any event. I'm really not sure what your point is supposed to be. BBC and ITV news are not there to "sell" anything. They are reporting news.

Yes of course it is. It may well be based upon many truths and many agreed failures in the system but the fact remains it is still a work of written fiction by a writer with a clear and defined agenda. Its filled with artistic interpretation, exaggeration and a modified dialogue of events in order to condense someone's entire life period into a 90 minute movie. I repeat again, I am not denying any truth to the subject, but the fact is ANY dramatisation of events will be subject to enhancement, poetic licence and editorial. Its a movie not a documentary. It doesnt have any balanced viewpoint. It doesnt have any right of reply from the opposing side. What else would you call it other than propaganda. Propaganda = information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view. Ken Loach has hardly been quiet in his views on the government nor the welfare system. Its also absolutely clear where his political leanings are. When that famous 1997 epic was released nobody was denying that the Titanic sinking wasn't a real life event but it doesnt mean that the rest of the 3 hour borefest was absolutely 100% true and accurate facts.

Nothing else in the city for what? Office supplies, stationery, books, CDs, DVDs, newspapers, computer materials, overpriced chocolate? Im sure most people would be able to find some alternative vendor if they really needed something that urgently.

Im sorry but if they want to see it so much have a trip out ot Doncaster then. Its not that far away. Blimey, its only got a limited time frame on its tour and from what I recall it came to Sheffield last year. Looking at the list of places, there appears to be plenty of smaller towns on the list which I would put good money on, didn't get it last year. Its just a bit of variety to let everyone have a chance. Good for them. Least they are covering 44 different places. Makes a change to some of the other key events that repeatedly limit themselves to Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and London all the time. Its a glorified advert for a fizzy drink not some essential spirit of Christmas which must be seen. Plenty of other good local christmassy things around. Many are for charity too.

They probably dont see any commercial incentive for showing it. I dont put down the welll made, well acted and the message within IDB but, is it a populist money making movie OR is it realistically just propaganda against the Government and their current actions towards benefits claimants. Harsh as it sounds, I can see why this movie is only shown in selected cinemas.

To a point yes it does. There are of course famously right wing and left wing newspapers. One might also argue that the same goes for Television. However, there is a big difference. There are rules and regulations to newspapers and television. There are (albeit many would dispute them) codes of conducts, standards, evidence and strict controls as to how things can be presented and how balance must be given. As an example, how many times do we see people screaming and whining about the BBC and its leftie bias then next minute people are screaming about it being nothing but a right wing government mouthpiece. Sounds to me like if you are upsetting both sides, you are doing your job of "balancing" perfectly well. Fact is that none of these controls apply to social media. Most of its content is user generated. Its news sources are unconfirmed and unverified. Its content can be wholly minipulated, edited, changed and re-written to suit any agenda the poster or posters wish to fit into. There are whole websites and feeds dedicated to "facts" which are completely unverified and on countless times have been busted for being completely untrue. There are thousands and thousands of videos posted with dramatic titles such as "real footage" or "leaked tape" of some alleged dramatic event which turns out to be a complete hoax. There are youtube channels dedicated to giving away dirty secrets, disturbing footage, leaked phone calls and CCTV, all with wild and dramatic narrative about who/what/how X was covered up - of course none of which is actually verified, reported or proven. Its all too easy. Anyone can say what they are like when they are hiding behind a keyboard. Hey, some of us are even doing it now. Lets be honest here most social media content is opinion. That's really what it is. Its the modern day sewing circle of the gossipy women going on about that bloke down the road and his dodgy trips to the shed late at night. Its the old biddies yacking over the fence about the dirty cow at number 69 with the unwashed nets. Its the flat cappers sat round with their pint of mild telling their wild tales about how they know, because a bloke at the bar told them, that the EU is all a big scam and the Head of Judiciary wears pink lacy undies underneath his robes. I would rather have some trained journalists actually getting the facts and then making my own mind up after reading and watching a range of news. The top trending articles on facebook every day is not news. Even less so when those "trending" articles have been wholly bespoke created for your viewing after sophisticated analytics have tracked, scanned and checked just the type of things you are in to and the sort of things you agree with.

Actually he is closer to the truth than you think. It has been well researched and evidenced that social media sites such as facebook will track profies, moods, content, branding, trends posted by its users and deliberately target them with bespoke articles, adverts, groups and "suggested" items which match their profile. Its hardly a revolation that someone who has a certain opinion will be attracted to postings and media which has similarities to their own. Join enough groups or click on enough articles and over time someone's whole social media world turns into nothing but a wholly one sided and repeated exposure to a particular stance and viewpoint Such circumstances would inevitiably lead to some people forming a default setting whenever X subject is brought up in the future.