ECCOnoob

It's not "a few quid". Taking the example that was discussed earlier, that extra 10% is equivalent to £50,000. Buying back bulk amounts of properties or constantly applying that extra 10% you think is so trivial, could equate to millions. You really haven't a clue.

Nothing absurd about it. Just how much in your world do you think they should be paid then? Within the council there are pen pushers and administrators earning high £20,000s. There are business support officers and analysts and even security guards earning mid-high £30,000s. There are HR advisors and project managers earning almost £50,000. So therefore, is it really that 'outrageous' for an executive of an entire division to be expecting a salary £100k plus? Hardly.

Are you going to magically pull the money out of your backside to cover the cost of that 10% extra? They are working to a budget. They're not plucking some figure out of thin air.

What adult does? that's why there are a verity of apps used plenty by grown adults as well as kids which make fart noises, play games with cartoon birds blowing up and create selfies with silly distorted characterises or animated filters on top. That's why people can get smartphone covers/cases/decoration in anything from barbie pink, to dinosaur green to furry dice or little jewelled trinkets hanging off them. The device is just a tool. Like I said earlier kids shouldn't need a 'special phone' all of the things you mention above are already available. Parents can choose to download and/or block any app they choose. They dont need a bespoke 'intranet' because facility already exists to make internet access child friendly. Nearly all Internet Service Providers have had such facilities for decades and schools do it all the time. What parents need to do is pull their heads out of their backsides and actually take responsibility to understand the tech, set it up properly and continually monitor it before they give it to their child. I can guarantee having two tier types of mobile phones will not solve the issue. Kids are not stupid. If one phone is a mocked as a toy and the other is deem a 'proper phone' its obvious what peer pressure and bullying will follow.

Maybe. But don't forget with any big project like this, there's lots of prep work in the background before any spades start hitting the ground. There's all the costs of consultancy, design, planning, architects, plant, utilities, surveyors, insurances, legal fees, project management, contracting, procurement.... That 200k per house is not simply for materials and labour.

But a lot of this seems to stem from parents demanding legislation and finger pointing towards the actual companies rather than taking self-responsibility for their own failures. Many of the barriers on age restricting access or accessing harmful content or 'accidently' making some ludicrous purchases on mummy's credit card 'without knowledge' of the parents.... Can all get set at the click of a button if the actual parents took responsibility to set the phones up properly, set the parent called controls, put data blocks on, set passwords and took the perfectly sensible step not to have their credit card information stored on a phone being given to their kid! All of those security functions exist and have for at least two decades if mummy and daddy actually bother to read the instructions and did a bit of research before handing a device to their little Britney or Dwayne. A recent BBC article highlighted issues with multiple social media companies (who all have at least a 13 or above age minimum) being blamed for having many kids underage on their services. There were the sorts of usual crying about why are the companies not doing more to protect children and on about how kids signing up were blatantly lying about their age, but nobody seemed to be asking the question about what the hell the parents were doing. Why were the parents not checking their phones or even stopping the apps being download in the first place. As others have said, it's not the children walking to a shop buying these devices. The device is nothing more than a tool. It can be as useful, useless, necessary, unnecessary, perfectly safe or dangerous as the fleshy end user wants to make it.

What has any of that crap got to do with a private developer investing their private money into building something on private land. It is THE STATE who has responsibility for mandatory housing for those in genuine destitution, not private business. Stop turning every thread into one of your anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, anti-neoliberalism rants.

Interesting. Maybe the tide will eventually turn then. However, these corporations dont usually make such investments likely. The £150m is a lot of money but lets say those 390 axed or potentially axed workers were all earning current national minimum wage level (obviously some roles likely to be above this anyway) that would give a full time equivalent bill of over £8.7m in just base wages alone. That's before the additional costs of training, supervision, holidays, sick pay, other benefits. Given the NMW usually has increments every year too, it soon adds up. A decade ago it was at £6.50 for a adult. Its now £11.44. A 75% increase. I guess any cost/benefit will depend on the outlay for ongoing maintenance, repair and life expectancy of the machinery but one wonders if costs of the physical objects over human wages would increase 75% over 10 years...

But again, what's that supposed to mean? The one bedroom ones will be cheaper than the two bedrooms with the three bedrooms being the most expensive. If someone wants one but can't quite stretch through a two-bedroom, they have a choice to go for a smaller one bedroom one or find somewhere else. Just like my purse doesn't stretch to a eight-bedroom mansion so I have to make do with my smaller three-bedroom semi. If you are seriously suggesting that a private developer spending their private investment money to build properties on premium land in a city centre should then be somehow forced to sell a portion of it to people who otherwise couldn't afford to get one, I totally disagree. Why should they? They're a business not a charity. Mandatory provision of housing is a state responsibility. If the council wanted to force some clauses upon the developer of this present scheme, they could have done so in the planning application or the terms of permission or granted them some public funding to compensate the cost of it or build it themselves directly from public funds for specific public housing purposes. Other than that, it should be up to private business what they want to build and sell it at what the market will dictate. Don't see Gucci being forced to sell off half of their stock discounted just so 'poor people' can access it? Waitrose don't get compelled by the government to dedicate 4 or 5 aisles of food at poundland prices just to accommodate those who can't afford market rate for their gugs Everyone who buys or rents a house (unless they are extremely privileged or lucky) generally finds it one of the most expensive purchases they ever make. Most people I know including myself have all had to start somewhere and struggle and scrimp and save to get a deposit and afford the mortgage or the rent This is not a new story. It's life. None of that is the fault of private businesses.

I'm afraid it's nothing earth shattering. It's what is being driven by the ever increasing shift in us consumers demanding instant this, instant that, at the click of a button and all at rock bottom prices. Those fleshy parts previously fetching and carrying cost continual wages. They take sick days. They take holidays. They need constant supervision and management and discipline and training which costs even more money. They are subject to National insurance payments and pension payments and demand annual increases.. Doesn't take much for the number crunchers to work out the investment/maintenance cost of the machinery versus the benefits versus cost of X number of human staff and do the maths. If people want to cling on to human touch, they have to be prepared to pay more on the price tag.

To whom? The word is just as subjective as the aesthetics of a building. To a single person on nothing more than welfare benefits probably not affordable. To a graduate couple doing white collar jobs with average salary then probably will be affordable. It's a private development being built on premium land in the middle of the city centre. Its price will be dictated by the market like any other.

If that's true then seems less of a dramatic story. Basically one subsidiary brand converting into a different subsidiarity brand. Wonder if there has been some backroom dealing here "PIPER" the conglomerate that owns the P&P brand just very coincidentally happened to previously own the Turtle Bay brand right next door and also used to be an investor of the current conglomerate who owns the Cosy Club brand. Isn't life convenient sometimes.

But how do you know that your 'experience' of the city would be any worse now than it was 14 years ago if you admit you haven't been there. For instance, you are banging on about "bad parking" but nearly all of the car parking I have mentioned in my post is exactly the same as it was 14 years ago so what's changed? With exception of a couple of national casualties that were on the brink of or have entirely collapsed, most of the department stores are still there just as they were 14 years ago. Other units have be replaced by different types of shopping more suited to the current consumer trends so what's changed? They were still vagrants and beggars around 14 years ago. So what's changed?

Why do people keep saying this. It doesn't have "bad parking". There's lots of parking all around the city. Around the main shopping area there are three large car parks, two more large car parks either end of Arundel Gate, two more at Victoria Quays/Castlegate, another one just off Bridge Street, another one just off West Street and various street parking areas in between. Of course such parking is subject to restrictions and charges which is no different to any other city in the world. Unlike a mall, a city centre has people attending for different reasons beyond shopping so therefore it has to be controlled. The city centre still does have department stores. At least three of them, maybe even five-six of them depending on how it's defined. Yes, of course it had a lot more in the past, but it's obvious there's been a global decline in the popularity of department stores and significant rise in internet shopping. Several of the names we have lost from the street are not specific to Sheffield and more national chains going into administration. Even John Lewis closed a number of stores in the past couple of years when it made a catastrophic loss. Maybe if you actually stepped foot in the city centre more than once every 14 years, you might notice some of the positives. Why not actually come down, have a look around some of the multi-million pound improvements and developments. See some of the new independent stores or more boutique stores that have opened up, see some of the new food courts and leisure facilities. Some of the new public Square and spaces. As for the "great unwashed", well unfortunately the problem with public streets is they get cluttered up with the public. Some of them are less desirable than others. A factor that happens in cities all over the world. It is not just private land you can just kick people out of. Yes, I agree. There are pockets of vagrants and delinquents - but let's not pretend one just can't move two foot without tripping over some beggar or drunkard. That's nonsense.

Maybe refresh yourself what you said at post #9. YOU asked for an argument so that is why I've specifically picked out YOUR posts.

Quite ironic comment considering your own earlier posts boldly declaring statements like "argue with that" and "enough said" Makes it sound as if somehow what you're coming out with is beyond debate. You can have your opinions on whether you like them, whether you choose to watch them, why you don't understand how they are so popular... But when you come out with nonsense like they have no talent I'm going to call you out on it. Clearly that is not the case. Two of them have had well over a decade or more as entertainers before their current primetime thing. One through acting and presenting the other through singing and performing. The third has spent years working as a high level barrister at the criminal bar before successfully auditioning for his own show and now transferred to the network's flagship programs. Regardless of whether you personally like them, it is blatantly obvious they have some kind of talent otherwise they wouldn't have been the ones who made it to the big leagues out of the thousands of showbiz wannabes and has-beens churning through the system every year, nor would they keep earning big paychecks to front the big shows would they.

Well firstly I have no desire to have a career in television or on stage. Secondly, unlike the three people you are singling out, I don't have any training, skills or experience in performing or broadcast presenting. Now. Do you have anything to actually to debate or just resorting to silly name calling and emojis.

Jesus, you are hard work. What the hell do you mean they are not entertainers. For the record, Robert Rinder isn't a judge. He presents a spoof courtroom style arbitration show which is primarily for the purpose of entertainment. Do you seriously think Judge Rinder is a real courtroom? I have just said earlier, Allison has done acting before big brother appearance . Rylan, well before X factor was already a model, singer and performer in various venues. How is that not entertainment experience. They're not producing documentaries or reading the news. Just what do you think television presenting is. Their positions on big brother or x factor, which are nothing more than glorified game shows, is irrelevant. It still doesn't detract from their basic talent and popularity. I don't disagree that they are Marmite to the viewers. That's no different to any other personality past or present. Even some of the so-called stars of yesterday I couldn't stand. However, get over yourself with your judgement that they are not talented or entertaining. To some people they are and that's exactly why they get paid to front programs year after year.

Quite easily. One completed training through television workshops including acting as a teenager in several dramas and has consistently undertaken television, radio presenting work for the past 20 years. Another is a former singer who was performed in several tribute acts before breaking into television performing. The third is a fully qualified barrister who spent many years working at the criminal bar in complex fraud, white collar crime and anti money laundering work before successfully auditioning into front his own court arbitration show and now obtaining several other prime presenting roles. They are all earning six figure salaries out of their television draw, presenting skills and talent. You are free to not like them, you are free to not watch them, You are free to declare them rubbish. But let's not talk nonsense. They all clearly have some 'talent'. I dare say probably more than you have. Talentless people do not have decades long careers in television and media.

Oh come off it. You seriously think that the worship over the cult of celebrity is a new thing. The media format might have changed but dont kid yourself. There were Z-listers, attention seekers, wannabes and eccentrics desperate for their 5 minutes of fame just as much back in the black and white days. The tabloids were just as interested in tittle tattle and who was shagging who just as much. There were still gossip magazines and saucy stories. There was the publicity stunts. There was plenty of talent contests and freak shows where the viewers could all gather round on a Saturday night to point and laugh. There was the playboy and page 3 hopefuls thrusting their only two talents in the faces of anyone with a camera. Even the foundations of modern day 'reality television' and 'real people's stories' can be traced to shows made as far back as the late 50s. Its not about people "coming back to their senses". Their behaviour now is the same people's behaviour back then so lets not go in denial. From the screaming hordes following their music idols..... To the groupies bashing down dressing room doors to get to touch their favourite TV star... To the magazines flying off the shelves with the latest stories about the rocky relationship of Burton v Taylor or the salty demise of Maryln Monroe or some human interest puff piece about the woman with 21 kids or the man whose bread roll looked like the face of Big Daddy. We had people famous for just being in a TV advert (one noted example was the 'face' of British Airways who had to stop being a air hostess on regular flights because she was hounded by passengers wanting an autograph). We had people famous because they performed a party trick on Nationwide. We had people famous for just being Miss Swindon 1967. We had people famous because they could rip a phone book in half. Stop trying to make out that your generation is somehow more culturally superior to the current one just because, I fully suspect, you simply dont understand it. Fact is, even in the black and white days there was an element of trash that was lapped up just as much as anything today.

Oh really. In your expert opinion then - just how long do you think it should take to thoroughly complete an Inquiry of events stretching back 20+ years, involving tens of thousands of documents and witness testimony from potentially 120 or more witnesses based on current discovery.

I'm sorry but you are completely exaggerating and doomongering again. Every child in this country has basic level of mandatory schooling. They are now been kept in school up to 18. Those 'working classes', as I said earlier, are not going down some mine or stuck in some factory for 14 hours a day, many of those working classes are doing equivalent to 'white collar' 'middle class' jobs as the world of work and technology has evolved. Luxuries which for previous generations will have been for the absolutely elite are now more open for all. Even those on so called modest earnings now have potential to travel abroad, obtain domestic appliances, and abundance of cheap food, consumer goods and clothing. You're never going to get equality across the country, but let's not make out that all of the north is some grim industrial wasteland stuck in the past. Even in our own city we have evolved with the next generation living and working in professional occupations, skilled trades and degree level careers not bemoaning the effects of Thatcher and sat on their behind waiting for the next Coking Works to be reopened. What about northern cities like Manchester which are going through dramatic changes and improvements. What about some places in North Yorkshire, outskirts of Doncaster, Derbyshire and even some of our own local constituencies which have a average wealth and income rivalling or even more than some parts of the southeast. Equally, there are plenty places south of Watford Gap and even in London itself which are very much down to earth working class areas with people on modest means. It's not all streets paved with gold. Go take a look around some parts of Essex, Norfolk, the South coast, Cornwall. They face just as many challenges, adjustments and developments as the supposed industrial ghost towns in the North. You can't just dismiss statistics. Just because the rate fluctuates doesn't mean things are going backwards. Even if there are discrepancies (which I'll ever going to go away no matter what system you bring in), it doesn't detract from the overall fact that a majority of the population ARE living longer. The majority of the next generation ARE starting work several years later than predecessors. There has been barely a handful of changes to the state pension age throughout history. At the time of the post war years, the average life expectancy for males was 66 and female 71. On present day numbers it's now at 78 for males and 82 for females. An increase over time average to 11 to 12 years extra life and you seriously think there is justified outrage of extending retirement age by a couple extra years away from the level set back in the 1940s. It's obvious things have to change.

Blimey, talk about putting something down before I even gets proper chance to get going. There really does seem to be collective on here desperate for this initiative to fail. Or perhaps I'm missing something. Has there been a wave of destruction all over the city centre caused by these vehicles? Are pedestrians getting flattened hourly by these vehicles? Has there been a chain of crashes happening by these supposed unskilled and unqualified drivers? I have been in the city for the past couple of days and can't say I have seen a pile of green Freebee buses upside down in the middle of Arundel Gate or smashed through the window of Atkinsons or bouncing up a kerb narrowly avoiding pedestrians... Are they really that much better or worse than any other bus driver navigating around a busy city?

But statistically a large majority of people are - in many cases 10-15 years longer than their predecessors. Furthermore, as the generations have evolved the next batch of pensioners will include vast numbers of people who started their working life much later. A generation of pensioners won't didn't leave school until at least 18 the continued in full-time education to their early twenties meaning they did not start of their working life until at least 5 or so years later than the previous generation. A generation of pensioners whom the majority will not have worked down a mine or 14 hours a day in some factory works filling their lungs with with various diseases, crippling their bones and going deaf. Many of those next generation will have been sat behind a desk or operating machinery at the touch of a button or tapping away on a computer or working from home or utilising the advancing technology. You are always banging on about 'fairness and equality'. So therefore, isn't it perfectly fair to expect a retirement age to be increased for people who are both living much longer and starting their careers much later than their predecessors. Pretty basic logic if you asked me. We cannot leave things static continually funding increasing age of pensioners who've spent less years paying to the system but living dramatically longer lies after retirement. Something has to give.

Nothing to stop the owners moving into the new developments if they wanted to. However, given Chubbys closed in 2020 and the owner's plan to reopen at a different location has come to nothing 4 years on, I suspect they simply decided to take the money and move on. An institution it may have been at the time, and I was certainly not a stranger frequenting it on a night out - but ultimately times change. Tastes change and there's plenty of the other places to sufficiently satisfy the drunk hungry crowd.