ECCOnoob

What's with the insulting :loopy::loopy: We are not in the stone age any more. Gender and in many respects the development of sexuality involves far far more aspects than simply what equipment someone has between their legs. How a person feels in their mind, their definition of themsleves, their psychological state, their build, their body development, their hormones, their life choices all will develop into who someone is and as they grow older who they want to be. In the past young babies were forced into a category of boys like blue, girls like pink. Boys like to play with diggers and footballs, girls like to play with dolls and make up. Parents can wrongly force mould children into what THEY want them to be. They were creating mini versons of themselves with the child being pushed into activiites and choices which may completely counter what their own mind is trying to develop itself. That is not necessarilly a good thing. Look at some examples, we had young children out on the streets of Goldthorpe standing around cheering and clapping at the burning dolls and posters of Maggie Thatcher. A person they know nothing about, a time when they weren't even a twinkle and their parents eyes. So, where might that lead? A child reaching adulthood with a completely pre-formed and forced position of hatred of the Tories, Bankers, Capitalists and anything to the right of the SW party just because mum and dad said so. We have gun toating nutjobs in america giving their offspring kiddie size guns and holders and drumming into them that the right to bear arms and protect by killing someone is perfectly acceptable. Where might that lead? A child going into a school and dealing with an average bully in the most extreme and leathal way possible. We have parents who drum the matcho manly attitude into their Sons. The sporty football nuts, chauvinist attitude that men are strong and do the digging and women stay at home and make tea. Where might that lead? Adults who are pre-programmed that men are leaders and women are the weaker and inferior position. Men who are anti-homosexuality, have an intollerence of those who appear ifeminate or weak. Society and (finally!) general understanding has moved on in our parts of the world. Its developing all the time. Some people need to get on with developing with it.

I dont lack compassion. However, it does seem that plenty of people lack common sense. We are not talking about the "price" of toilets in London generally, you seem to be moving the goalposts. You earlier focused on two specific areas in Central London and one particular facility which charges. I have set out that there are other options for someone who is really that desprate. Since you raised it yes I am a little bit "on one". This is a subject that comes up time and time again on forums like this and in newspapers. I just do not understand what everyone is complaining about and why there is such protest that precious council monies are being diverted away from toilet provision. This is 2016. The country has moved on from communal bath houses and outside bogs. I will concede, that there is always the exception of those rare people with such an unfortunate condition that they simply cannot wait, however, the real fact is that MOST people will at some point in their daily circumstances be within reach of public or private facility. If you are shopping, all major stores, shopping malls and supermarkets have them. If you are dining or drinking out every restaurant and bar has them by law. If you are going to work or on business, every office, courthouse, government building and company premises will have one. If you are travelling all major transport interchanges have them. If you are out for leisure nearly every cinema, theatre, museum, exhibition centre, leisure park, sports ground or stadia will have them. If you are visiting as a tourist your hotels, bars, cafes and major tourist attractions will have them. On top of this there is the addition of the chargeable cabins and other facilities you mention earlier. YES - some facilities do charge but life isnt free. Toilets cost money to run and money to maintain. Nip over to the continent and public loo payments is the very common thing. I have said this before, if you really are one of those one in a million unfortunate people who is out in a major city with such a sudden and desprate need that you cannot possibly tick any of the above boxes then unfortunately lack of state funded loos really should be the least of your worries. As stated by others, any business is highly likely to make concessions for those who are ill, elderly, infirm, disabled or otherwise. In the real world, most busy shops and pubs in central London would barely notice someone nipping in anyway. I really do not understand the demand and more importantly to this thread why it necessarilly has to be free and provided by taxpayer monies.

Well with respect you cannot expect a taxpayer funded facility on every single street corner in the entire city to be provided just in the extremely rare case some very desperate IBS sufferer walks by. They are not building a facility just for YOU. For goodness sake, there are thousands of people who suffer with the condition of all different severities. It is very very inconvenient and very disruptive. BUT, that means that some people unfortunately have to put some thought as where they go and what facilities are in the area. IF someone has the condition so severely is it really beyond the realms of reasonableness that they would check in advance what facilities (public or otherwise) are available and where they are located. You are talking about a hugely populated area in central London. As other have said pubs, restaurants, hotels and even some shops around there will have a toilet. Go use them.

Thanks I will have a look - Didn't know that was possible. Im not defending the Directors for whatever they have or have not done - but if The Star website is hiding away the story by using cache that screams alarm bells to me. They are not exactly famed for their journalistic intergrity but even a basic newspaper operation publishing a story and making it suddenly disappear all seems too fishy. Failure to fact check? Failure to verify the source? Failure to actually bother to research. hmmmm something doesnt seem right about their article.

Do you have a link this story? Every time I try to read it on thier website it does not connect to the page. Its just disappeared. Urgent retraction perhaps??

Which is? At least allow me some details as to what you define a "hero" to be. Lets start small shall we, how about a dictionary definition. a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. Would you not agree that the last two could be applied to very dedicated and successful sportspersons?

Any proof of that? Was it just becuase the Star said so? Funny how the link to the story on the website has suddenly been disabled. ---------- Post added 18-10-2016 at 20:21 ---------- Since when was sporting achievements and extreme dedication to win an athletics event thrown into the brackets of "celebrity culture" or the BBC. Hero worship of famous sportsman and sportswomen has been happening for decades. Major sporting events have always attacted thousands or millions of viewers either live at the stadia or on television. Admiring and celebrating the achievements of Jessica Ennis or Jody Cundy are hardly the same as hero worship of some bimbo from TOWIE or some airhead Youtube "star"

You really don't that the public's response to a developer's proposals or other work in an area doesn't have any impact on those "probable return" decisions?? A developer comes along with a plan for a nice shiny new shopping mall. They submit proposals and see hundreds of comments from people whining it "looks crap" "not as good as the old days" "nobody will pay that price" "nobody wants that stuff" "its all tat" Do you not think that might sway a decision on whether to go ahead? Scenario 2. A developer starts a project and before phase 1 is even built they see people slagging it off, complaining about the design, complaining about the potential occupiers, complaining about the purposes of it, harking back to the days of old when the moor was filled with traffic and Roberts Brothers and Redgates were still there. Do you not think that might affect a developer's decision on spending money building phase 2? ---------- Post added 18-10-2016 at 13:06 ---------- They must be doing something right to have a worldwide operation which has been ongoing since 30+ years. Who are all these absent customers I wonder? Where is all their bad reputation smeared all over the daily papers? Pawnbroking might not be tasteful but just like nail bars, tanning salons, charity shops or even discount stores, it does not make any less of a legitimate business. Its snobbery again.

Quite right Penistone. You may mock but snobbery does not draw away from the fact that Primark employs over 57k people and was making a profit at over £313m at last audit. Cash Converters is a worldwide company operating in over 20 countries with over 200 stores in the UK alone. They may not be premium brands but as has been argued dozens of times on this forum, whenever a premium brand opens around here everyone jumps around complaining about them being, poncey, overpriced, snobbish, rip off merchants. We get the businesses that people choose to shop in. They may not be Gucci and Chanel but they are still big businesses. Enough already. People have been bitching and whining for months that "nothing is happening". Now it is people are still bitching and whining. No wonder developers keep away from this place.

Well until charges are brought and proven guilty in a Court of Law we can all imagine anything we like. I could allege that Sir Philip did something obscene with a BHS shop dummy whilst being spanked with a discount DVD box set of On the Buses but it doesnt mean its true nor can be used as part of some sort of witch-hunt.

Perhaps the demolition contractors and council have far more logic than you. Putting a "ramp" where you say is far too close to the the work site. In fact if you did that, traffic would be driving only a couple of metres at most from the very thing they are trying to pull down. Also its not just as simple as plonking some tarmac down. There is planning approval to be obtained, pavements to be adjusted, road markings, signage, traffic management to consider. How long do you think that will take? Annoying as im sure it is, they have got to get the job done. People have been demanding the place is pulled down, now it is, people are moaning because the traffic is heavy. Its temporary and for a few months. Its just one of those things.

Are they not pulling the grosvenor hotel down? I would assume they have got no choice but to divert traffic.

I am not putting down your opinion but I do get amused when I see so many people on this forum demanding quality shops, demanding premium brands, complaining they are fed up with the cheap downmarket chains all the time, complaining that nothing good ever comes to Sheffield ...then when something does open people complain its too expensive, nobody can afford it etc. It happens all the time.

Have you actually been to the place? You bang on about "nothing new" and "same same same" but seem to totally disregard the fact that fox valley has several things different to your average bog standard retail park. How about the independent department store, the selection of places to eat, the market stalls, the independent bike store, the selection of smaller boutique stores, the offices and other non retail business. I totally disagree that its just "another retail park" its more like a modern take on a small town centre. Of course there will be the familiar chains but that's what people want. Have you ever wondered why these chains get so big - because WE choose to shop there. Fact is, its offers far far more than your Kilner Way and Meadowhall Retail type park, has more smaller and independent businesses than other places I have seen and will be a good addition to the local area.

Why would you assume the merseyside figures only includes Birkenhead? What about towns such as Southport, St Helens, Formby, Crosby, Bootle. This is sort of the point I was making and the article contents. What defines the "size" of a city or city region can be totally subjective to the statistics you choose to use or the image you want to protray.

I dont think it is that black and white. http://www.citymetric.com/skylines/where-are-largest-cities-britain-1404 UK population census data for the cities states: " Sheffield – 552,698 Liverpool – 466,415" However, if you take in the wider metropolitan areas "Merseyside (L'pool) – 1,381,189 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) – 1,343,601" The entire article is pretty interesting and sets out how this potential nonsense of what actually consitutes the "biggest" cities in the UK can be totally skewed depending on what stats you bother to include or ignore.

Its not a service that is necessary. Its 2016. We all have a toilet in our house. Every major public building in the city has one. Every place to eat and drink has one by law. Every major store and shopping arcade has one. All of the transport interchanges have them. Every office block has them. Every leisure facility has them How many more are needed? Pubic toilets exist. They are everywhere. Why does it HAVE to be the council that provides them. There are far better things for council money to be spent on.

Do you also complain about "lazy twots" who expect waiters to bring them food in a restaurant and those obscene people who demand that a barman make them a drink. Its called customer service. IF a store offers or routinely privides bag packing service from their assistants why the hell shouldn't someone be entiltled to use it. It often already does happen in stores like Tesco, and others. An assistant will offer to help with bag packing and some people may or may not accept it. Some other types cashpoints which are counter based will pack a bag whether you ask or not - it just happens. Why so much outrage?

There is also the Howden House and the Central Library. The Train and Bus stations certainly should be counted as centre of town because that's exactly what they are. _ its a big "centre". Fact is that as a visitor to town there will be dozens of options available from the places you are visiting. If you are shopping all the major department stores and cafes have public toilets. If you are visiting an office or firm, all business buildings will have them. If you are here outside daytime hours, presumably you are here on a night out and will have access to the toilets in every bar, pub, restaurant, theatre or cinema. If you are travelling through then you will at some point have access to a toilet at the place you left, the train or bus stations or the place you intend to get to. That leaves a small number of unfortunate people who are in the city at the wrong place and wrong time and seemingly don't have a facility. Unfortunately I don't agree that dwindling council resources should be put to a provide toilet facility for that very very small minority when there are plenty of other options. There is even a whole list of business which the council direct people to use their freely available toilets: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/toilets/community-toilet/members.html

I dont quite frankly care where they WANT to live. When someone else is picking up the tab its not THEIR choice and they are not in a position to demand anything. Using your elderly grandfather as an example, are you saying that if he relied on council housing with taxpayers subsidising his rent, and in the highly unlikely event that a city centre, ground level, single storey, single occupancy dwelling came free - he would be entitled to refuse and stay in a muti-bedroomed underoccupied home just because the new place was a bit noisier and not big enough for all his possessions - hardly sounds fair! In any event, as Apelike points out, such a scenario does not apply and the so called bedroom tax is only going to affect a limited number of people beyond a certain future point.

Dont lifts exist? Where do all the elderly live in cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, Singapore. By their very nature MOST flats are a single storey dwelling. Just because you have to take a lift up to the floor is no more difficult for an elderly person than having to cross a street to get to their dwelling.

"fairness" is an interesting choice of word. Maybe some believe that fairness is considered when you have taxpayer monies subsidising for pensioners to single occupy a 2/3 bedroomed property when there are families who cannot find any suitable council housing living in B&Bs or temporary facilities. I think its perfectly arguable that if you are living in a taxpayer subbed property and want to keep the extra unoccupied rooms you pay extra for it. Its the same old argument. If you dont OWN it why should you demand you keep it. Pensioners or not, renting is renting.

Quite simple - exactly the same reason that anyone else who can chooses to buy a performance car. 1. A Subaru would get up to 60mph in less than half the time of some Dedrie pootling along in their Dacia Sandero. 2. I would feel a hell of a lot more confident getting out of junctions and completing overtaking manoeuvres than I would in something with less performance and a smaller engine. 3. A Subaru would also come with a damn sight more kit (including safety features) than many other cars. 4. Becuase they can. You could buy a shirt from Primark and a shirt from Ermenegildo Zegna. On paper they both do exactly the same thing. Some may even argue that from a distance they both look exactly the same. Doesn't stop those who can afford it from buying their luxury goods does it. Quality, performance and specification is what matters. Why is there always such drive for the lowest common denominator all the time. Some people drive slow so we should all be compelled to drive slow. Some people have entry level cars so we should all have them. Its pathetic. IMO, not maintaining progression should be penalised just as much as speeding. If people are not confident maintaining a speed then they should be retested as to whether they shoud be driving at all. As to the OP of why people speed, well speaking for myself, im busy. I have places to go and a schedule which is usually tighter than Tom Daleys speedos. Traffic is getting worse and therefore on the rare occasion that I hit a suitable patch on a suitable road (such as Penistone Road or Sheffield Parkway) they can nuts if they think I am going to crawl along at 30mph or 50mph just because some pen pusher says that what the limit should be. The former is a wide dual carraigeway and part of the city main ring road. There is absolutely no reason why its got 10mph knocked off its speed limit. As for the parkway, again this is a wide purpose built dual carraigeway with little junctions or cross overs. There is absoultely no reason why the perfectly acceptable NSL which starts at the motorway end should be suddenly reduced by 20mph for the remainder - the only time a limit should be lowered is when and only when the lights start to appear for the split carrageways and city centre junctions - until then let people get on with it (worked example - see Chesterfield bypass). Ultimately I choose to take the risk and if I get caught I can only blame myself for any punishment I receive

What foods from ANY large grocery stores arn't factory processed. Unless you are buying at source or from a genuine farmers market everything goes though a factory and is subject to some form of additive, minipulation or enhancement.

No they are not. Disgusting littering morons are the culprits and they should be the ones fined punished. The litter not being disposed of properly is nothing to do with the vendors. How else are they supposed to serve their food? The whole point of take away food is just that, people take it away. Off premises. What said person does with the empty packet is no more the company's responsibility than a brewery company being responsible for someone falling over drunk. I agree the bag tax worked. It was a sensible idea but let's not get carried away. You cannot and should not start taxing the wider populous just because some morons behaive like animals. If some fatso cannot control their diet why should we ALL be punished with a tax on sugar or fats. If some littering scum won't walk to a bin why should ALL the shops and in turn customers suffer with a tax on their paper bags.