ECCOnoob

Whilst I fully agree that its annoying...... Fact is, in the big wide world of retail, most people do their shopping at weekends. That means there are only 6 weekends until some the biggest shopping purchases people will do all year comes to an end. 6 weeks is not really that long for retailers to go all out and push all their various promotions, gimmicks and marketing. Its not so surprising they go all out and as early as possible. Its the busiest shopping period of the year.

The value of currency goes up and down repeatedly. Always will. A change in government, a change in policy, military conflicts, failures in industry, natural disasters, company closures, media reporting can all have an affect on the value of shares, credit ratings and currency. Guess what - BREXIT is not the be all and end all. Between june and september it has dipped and risen 6 times. Longer term, what do you blame for the drop in 2012? 2013? 2015? No brexit to point the finger at then. You call me isolated. Perhaps some of us look at the bigger picture. Lets take your food example. Its never been so cheap. We are flooded with discounters and bulk sellers with the ability to fill a trolley for prices unheard of just a decade ago. Just becuase Tesco has some temporary fall out with a supplier because god forbid it might affect their £162m profit does not mark it to be some doomsday example of how the world is crashing around us.

We haven't left yet. We haven't even triggered article 50 yet. I think you need to be seriously looking into that. I haven't felt any different whatsoever.

What for exactly? What exactly do you think the result of a GE would be. What do you realistically think are the options. Status quo for Maggie Thatcher II i.e. life exactly as it is now Compo Corbyn and his bunch of deluded disciples UKIP.. a party who brawled with their own candidates and whose purpose (as a result of the Referendum) is wholly obsolete Liberal Democrats who? Green Party what? Total waste of time and money. The question was simple. Do people want to leave the EU - YES / NO. The people have spoken. It was a stright 2 way vote and whether people like it or not, the MAJORITY has spoken. I too was shocked and quite unhappy with the result but that's democracy. Pledges, soundbites and general horse crap was peddled by BOTH sides of the argument. People made up their minds just like they would in any other vote. Enough already. Time to get on with the important parts. A general election is not going to change anything and you know it. Its just another one of the many delaying tactics from sore losers.

Please highlight where I have said those words in my post or retract it. I dont need you putting false words into my mouth. ---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 17:07 ---------- The markets were not functional. They were decaying, wholly outdated, dirty and in need of urgent repair. The entire purpose of the castlegate area was changing. After years of people demanding that the city retail up its game and create a more centralised modern shopping space, the moor area is the chosen site for it. The markets was to form part of that. What would be the point of keeping it where it was and having the nearest shopping streets at the other end of town. Traders struggling to pay their fees is quite frankly thier issue. Competition and general footfall in markets has been in decline for years. Traders could have easily dragged themsleves into the modern world and evolved. "markets" in 2016 for the most of us is far far more advanced than meat, veg and bags of broken biscuts. You want to trade in a central city market hall in the middle of the prime retail space then you pay the market rate and offer a product that people want to buy. SCC is not a charity. Taxpayer monies are not infinite. As for the football grounds, IF by some parallel universe SUFC abandoned Bramall Lane and left it rotting for 20 years, followed by a handful of people demanding it be maintained by the Council would you be supportive to their cause? I have no problem with architecture of ANY kind and I would agree that SOME buildings (whether habitable or not) may need to be preserved due to their status. St Vincents IS NOT one of them. Its either got to be used by someone who is prepared to pay the bill or incorporated into any new developments. You have failed to address the key question and seemingly let your noble cause get in the way. Why should precious and finite taxpayer monies be used to preserve a privately owned building that nobody has used for 20 years, is not fit for habitation without major repair and has no major historical interest or national importance to anyone other than a handful of people. I have previously said that the building's owners have abandoned all interest. IF THEY DONT CARE WHY SHOULD THE REST OF US. It appears from the plans that the actual structure will remain standing and be incorporated into whatever the new building will be. Those plans you seemingly object to by the university and their developer overlords might actually save your precious building. Leaving it to rot away just like its own owners have done for the past 20 years aint gonna help much is it.

You seem to be blurring several issues here. Firstly the old argument of "how many student flats, facilities pubs does the city need" is pointless. Clearly, it needs more otherwise a private development company wouldn't build them. Businesses arn't stupid. They know the demands and market. Secondly you compare the loss of an abandoned decaying old church which has not been substantially used by its owners for nearly 20 years to a stadium which is used to thousands of fans every other week and run as an operational business every day of the week. Why should the council pull down one of the football grounds - they are being used. St Vincents is not. Thirdly, you are trying to compare council OWNED vandalised, abandoned and unfit for habitation housing blocks which quite rightly were pulled down to well maintained, privately owned and privately maintained businesses. What involvement to these buildings do the council have again? See point one. If a developer knows the market and they are being USED what right has the council sticking their beak in and saying they cannot build. "it looks nice" doesnt pay the bills. Its all well and good demanding the council prop up these buildings but what is the purpose. You are certainly not telling me that, nice as it is, St Vincents has some national and vital historical purpose that must be preserved. Its a church. A very nice chuch. BUT nobody is using it. Nobody cared enough since 1998 about it, its owners seemed quite happy to sod off to their new premises and take the money from the car parking land - but now there is talk of it being pulled down, suddenly there is protest. Its rediculous. If there were crowds of people by the busload pouring in to Sheffield to stan outside and look at it. If people were queing up to pay a few quid for a tour inside I might be more on your side. There isn't and therefore im not. Sometimes a building can be incorporated into a new development. Some excellent examples of such are shown all over the city. Sometimes the building is useable for some other purpose and again some excellent examples are around. On the other hand, sometimes its just not practical or economical for a developer and quite rightly it has to be pulled down. I say again, nice to look at is not enough. Someone or something has to pay the bills and unless people are prepared to put their hand in their pocket to save their beloved St Vincents why the hell should precious council monies be spent on it. Its not a council building.

From the description in the OP it sounds more like they were travelling in a hackney carriage in which case the only thing they would hit would be the perspex screening. Grown adult in back of cab for whatever reason didnt get their belt on quick enough. Cab turns corner and they impact door and fall to floor. Its clearly an accident but does the OP know that the cab was speeding and/or driving recklessly. They say in their own posts that they dont remember anything. Any vehicle turning a corner - even at a reasonable speed will shift an unbelted passenger about, even to a point of causing them injury. If it was so serious im sure they would have raised issue with the driver and took it further to complain there and then. I did ask the question of what happened when they told the driver but this has been met with silence from the OP and and accusations of me being deliberately sarcastic. The fact is unless they have x-ray vision and can see the speedo from the floor I really dont know how they can cateogrically prove any allegation of speeding. Reckless driving maybe, but whose words against who. Its an accident at the end of the day and reporting requires evidence.

Is the OP under 14?

Dont think there is much to comment on is there. They might be in very awkward spots they dont actually block the road in and out. Where exactly are they supposed to go. When an intercity train pulls in I can put money on those 30 waiting taxis been gone in minutes. They got rid of a perfectly good taxi rank and replaced it with a silly loop which fits less than 10% of the number in it. If those taxis were sent on thier way the queues of people waiting whilst a handful at a time drive in periodically would be horrendous. There is no other despatch system for black cabs so we are pretty much stuck with it. This problem is certainly not just a Sheffield thing. Take a look at the roads in and out of any major station and its just the same.

What did the driver say after you told him about his reckless driving and your unfortunate injury?

I dont understand what you mean Anna. People are allowed to bring Civil money claims if money is owed, damages are due and compensation awards applied just as much as People are allowed to defend, challenge, reduce or strike out any claim brought against them. Justice works both ways you know. People can sue companies. People can sue people. Companies can sue people and Companies can sue companies. Equally all of the above have a right to defend any claim brought against them. Are you really saying some specific persons should be excluded from the universal legal system? Do companies not a right to seek any unpaid monies due to them?

You say earlier that that you knew it had gone through Northampton BCC to get "legalised" How did you find that out? Did you receive something from them? If it has gone through court there would have been a letter/Claim Form, "Judgment" and then the order for the Bailiffs. If you genuinely have not received anything whatsoever from Court are you sure these people are actual official Bailiffs and not just some debt collectors. I would seriously make some calls and check when you can on Monday.

You show me yours I show you mine... https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/northampton-county-court-business-centre Anyway, this is all irrelevant. Clearly you think I know nothing about anything and just stand up for my fellow legal workers. Fine. I have tried giving some general advice to the OP and given my opinion on how their nasty unwarranted rant about Bailiffs was completely unjustified. Whatever will happen will happen. I'm not being pursued by courts and bailiffs so why should I care.

I am civil litigation lawyer. I know far more than you think. The claim form will be issued once the company has processed the debt through the bulk admin centre (which for the final time is still a valid court of law). The bailiffs will be acting upon directions within a court order as to how much the debt is and what they are to seek to recover. Doesn't need to be a "High Court" that processes it. ---------- Post added 29-10-2016 at 17:35 ---------- Who the hell do you think approves court orders? PS: I didn't say they were "sat" anywhere. All I am trying to quash is this repeated horse crap that Northampton Bulk Centre seemingly is some scam that has now power to do anything. YOU ARE WRONG.

I would agree entirely. But to get his "day in court" he needs to deal with things. If he feels like he is getting nowhere or does not understand what he needs to do, then he needs to seek out the relevant advice.

Its still a court of law. Its still issuing claim forms. Its still issues orders sealed form Judges. It has EXACTLY the same status and procedure as any other court house.

Unless you have seen the original court order you know Jack all about what he owes just like I dont. I am not trying to keep "rip off bailiffs in business". I have already said that they are just doing their job as instructed by a COURT ORDER. Its nothing to do the with bailiffs. London Corporation have pursued the debt and whether the OP agrees with it, has time to deal with, or cares about it, he is the one who has got to deal with it properly. I note he says that London Corporation dont listen to him, but it should not be them involved now. Its gone to court and been issued. A claim form must be produced and there is a procedure for responding to as shown below: https://www.gov.uk/respond-to-court-claim-for-money There is a whole stage for dealing with people who dispute the amount or dispute whether they owe a debt at all. Ignoring it and acting like a petulant child WILL NOT make it go away. From the OP's own comment is clear how this debt has accumulated and its going to keep doing so until its resolved properly. Im trying to be helpful but if people like you and the OP want to dismiss it as sticking up for "rip off" bailiffs and "dodgy" courts then quite frankly there is sod all I can do. Good luck with your head burying.

Are you a 5 year old? If you owe it what makes you think you have a right not to. Pay up. If you don't owe it, then contest it through the official procedure and get some advice. Burying your head in the sand will not make this go away. No wonder this has got to bailiff stage.

The court in Northampton serves as a bulk processing centre for debt matters. Despite what many internet forums tell you, it is still a court of law (albeit an administrative one) and the claim form issued is still a valid small claim. If you were still contesting the amounts then there are response forms and a procedure to follow. The instruction of bailiffs must mean its not been responded to and its just the next stage of the action. They are just doing their jobs as instructed by the court order i dont think there is any need for the name caling and attitude. If you still dispute the debt I would recommend that you urgent seek some advice and respond asap - otherwise the fees will just keep increasing.

Oh for goodness sake. I am sick of seeing this silly argument. Firstly there are HUGE areas of Sheffield population which the tram doesn't cover anyway so its hardly the prime transport system for most. Secondly the completed shopping development will include not just the moor but parts of calver st, burgess st, Cambridge street and charter sq ALL of which are few minutes walk from city hall tram stop. Thirdly, If someone really has a major pressing need that they absolutely must be door to door they can get on a bus which overlaps and serves the same areas as the tram anyway. People need to stop using the tram excuse as if its some absolutely abandoned route that nobody could possibly reach from the new development. Its 5 min walk away just using a different stop that's all. Typical Sheffield mentality. Waaa waaa waaa don't like change.

Give us a clue and give us some specifics. Which roadworks? Where in Sheffield? Which Part of the M1 are we talking about? They are certainly not "everywhere"

Of course its a problem. He sets you on, trains you up, you get used to the place and then you disappear off on maternity leave for anything up to xxx months on maternity pay. He then has to start the whole process of recruiting all over again. Its true that in law they cannot directly reject an offer of employment because of the pregnancy but on the flip side how would one prove categorically that this was the sole reason why they didn't get a job. Its certainly not easy to do. Unofficially, if you were an established employee with some service history that might be a very different position, but unfortunatley (rightly or wrongly) its quite clear that announcing that your are pregnant at an interview is going to have an impact on their decision to recruit. Have you thought about looking for agency/temporary contracts in the interim which may be more suitable in view of your pregnancy?

Population increase might be one small part of it. The burdens of surgeries and the NHS in general. The amount of money in the pot available for such services. Nobody can seriously compare the position with 20 years ago for goodness sake. The world has moved on dramatically. ---------- Post added 25-10-2016 at 13:26 ---------- I would agree that this is a part of the problem. Personally I really don't know what the OP is complaining about. They had no appointments until next week - so what? Its just a busy surgery. Its still only a few days away and if the matter was that serious they would be going to A&E or a Walk in Clinic. Secondly, for those who are really that desperate they offer an facility to get a quicker appointment by (god forbid) putting in some effort and calling the surgery promptly upon opening in a morning. What really is the complaint? Does the OP really think doctors are going to keep half empty diaries each day just in case people like them decide they want an appointment. GPs are for NON EMERGENCY ongoing and repeat issues. So what if people have to wait. If its that desperate - go see a private clinic. I really wish there was some regular way of seeing how much our individual contributions to the NHS pay for when we require a service. How much of our NI contribution actually would cover in the real world costs of medical services. It would be a hell of an eye opener to people and might put them back in their boxes as to how lucky they are. If GP appointments were £50-£60 a pop like they are in Ireland I wonder how full the waiting rooms would be and how quickly people might realise that their sniffle or rash can easily be dealt with by a pharmacist or even common sense. As Catherine Tate's Nan once said "never seen such a healthy looking lot in this waiting room"

Teaching a child the basic life skills they need to know and the essentials to get their development started I fully agree with. But, already there is categorising happening. Its putting a child into certain boxes. You say that a girl will learn female things like mummy. A boy will learn male things like daddy. The point is why? What about if a child's natural development favours more with the characteristics of the opposite sex. What if a girl has no interest in mummy's characteristics and has more favour with her father's behaviour, activities. Should they be forced into doing something they against their natural urge becuase it fits in with the gender stereotype? The point I am trying to make is why the separation. Why not both sexes of children learn characteristics of both parents as they develop their own way.