ECCOnoob

I have seen this sort of desperate journalism before. There is a bandwagon rolling here, after Hillsborough lets see what else we can smear the force with. Officers - even those on assignment elsewhere are still entitled to time off just like the rest of us in the working world. If I had a secondment in Greece, Spain or wherever I too may choose to have some drinks, lay on a beach or sit by a pool during my time off.

You do know that part of her duties as head of state is to have weekly meetings with the sitting PM of her government to find out exactly what has been going on in the cabinet meetings. You do know that she has daily despatch boxes filled with papers setting out exactly what her parliament has been debating and the results of such debates. You do know that despite her mostly ceremonial status, she is still the person who officially signs a law into force. Of course she gives a toss. The whole story is much about nothing. Jesus, Cameron was absolutely spot on with what he said. He used a perfectly acceptable turn of phrase to sum up a key part of an upcoming summit. Its only the BBC and newspaper peddlers who "give a toss" about the words he said. In the context and with the audience who he said it to, he has done nothing wrong. ---------- Post added 11-05-2016 at 00:20 ---------- Stuffed? Really? I bet if it was Saint Corbyn who said it, he would be applauded for speaking the truth. Its a fact. A fact that he is perfectly entitled to state in a private conversation in a private function. The message was the achievement of getting two leaders from said countries to a summit set up to try and tackle it. Even the horse's mouth agrees. If people actually bothered to read beyond the faux outrage headlines they would know that the essays published as part of the summit contains comments from said leaders which say Ashraf Ghani acknowledges in his piece that Afghanistan is "one of the most corrupt countries on earth" and Mr Buhari that corruption became a "way of life" in his country under "supposedly accountable democratic governments". Load of hot air over nothing. Its like a burglar kicking off for being described as a criminal.

hahhahah. You seriously believe that? Just because the media chooses to keep low key when it comes to white westerners committing atrocities in the name of religion does not mean it does not happen. I would do a little research pal. Even more so in America. There has been several murders, shootings, public disorder created in the name of extreme Christianity. Unfortunately due to the media's obsession with fitting things into a narrative, they are defined as "lone wolfs" "mentally disturbed" "revenge attacks" never is the T word used when its a white American. You think Christianity does not have its collections of extreme nutters pushing their agenda on others. Have you heard of places like the Westbro Baptist Church.

I think the fact that Sorrell is liable to pay 38,000x more tax than the poor ickle care worker shows perfectly well how the tickle down is working. What sort of hole in the public purse do you think we would have if rich people like Sorrell didn't put their money on the line and create these profitable businesses.

I am delighted you picked up on that. Because that is exactly the same "flawed argument" that crybaby sore loser lefties raise every time the Tories (who won the 2015 election) do something they don't like. All we hear is "the majority of people didn't vote for them" "the election was not fair" "the majority voted against tories" blah blah blah. Irrelevant of the total number of overall votes for or against to other parties - Khan got the majority share on the result. He therefore won and is therefore in charge. Just like the Tories did in the 2015 election. Majority share. Won. Now in charge. You certainly cant have it both ways.

So why aren't you attacking them then! Why are you going for a very successful businessman who has created massive employment opportunities and contributed more tax to the public purse than most others would pay in their entire lives. Why are you attacking Sorrell? Why are you having a go at people like me for "defending" Sorrell despite the fact he has done nothing which deserves your criticism. Logic?

You got proof that Sorrell has avoided tax?? A care home worker does an important but low skilled job which benefits a small group of people. Its a job that can be done by many others and is easily recruited for at the drop of a hat. A full time care home worker contributes £896.00 into the public pot. Sorrell risked £460,000 of his own money to invest into a business which at the last count now has revenues of 11.5 billion pounds and provides employment to 194,000 people. That company will pay UK tax on its UK operations, those employees will pay tax and from Sorrell's own £70m package he will personally contribute up to 33 million pounds into the public purse. The company is listed on the stock exchange and currently has a very healthy share price of 1601.00. Those shares will no doubt be used as part of the pension funds of many of us ordinary folk and will contribute even more tax into the public purse. You seriously asking who is more important? ---------- Post added 08-05-2016 at 13:57 ---------- Why don't you use that lump that's inside your skull and actually attack people who don't contribute to society. How about attacking the government who chose to sell off care home services in the first place? How about attacking some of the multi-millionaire care home company bosses who have been recently exposed of catastrophic failures in management, care provision and financial conduct? How about attacking the real and proven tax dodgers who ship all their wealth offshore or don't declare any profit at all? How about attacking the overpaid, talentless, ego-filled airhead celebrities for earning vast amounts of wealth for appearing in gaudy reality shows, giving interviews about their lives to gaudy magazines and being paid for being famous for just being famous.

Why on earth would he? Does he have any more chance of winning an election that Comrade Corbyn. To win an election you need the support of the whole country not just London. Khan could not even manage that on first choice votes with 1.4 million voting against him rather than the 1.1 voted with him. Whilst second vote preferences got him over the line, he still only broke through with a 56% share of the entire electorate count. Hardly a massive landslide was it. With the rise of UKIP votes, lack of trust in Labour generally and huge pockets of the country with an anti-Muslim, anti foreign sounding name, anti coloured person attitudes, the thought of a Muslim prime minster would make some people's heads explode.

What a load of horse crap. Since when is the salary of an advertising chief connected to poor low paid care home workers. What the hell has it got to do with him. When is it their responsibility to give their earnings away. Last year my partnership payment was 17x the income of a care worker, road sweeper or hospital porter. Should I suddenly be guilt tripped into handing my money out to those who earn less than me. Sorrell is a former Director and now Group Chief Executive of an extremely successful global brand. It has made huge profits and has international success. Why the hell shouldn't he receive a good package. As an contracted employee receiving salary and bonus payments he would be liable to up to 33 million in tax deductions from that salary package. How many ordinary folk pay that sort of money eh? How care workers and care homes does 33 million pay for eh? Perhaps next time Sorrell and thousands of other businessmen like him shouldn't bother. Stop trying so hard. Stop making so much profit. That would be great for the economy and company employees wouldn't it.

I absolutely agree. I too like to see democracy. The people have spoken - but I highly doubt they will be prepared to put their money where their mouths are. I give it a few weeks before those same voters will be complaining about actions (or lack of action) from said councillors. I just wish more people would actually bother to look at who is best for the job not what colour they represent. I drives me up the wall when people have this sheep mentality of just picking the same year on year. I have voted two or three different parties (or ind) dependant on what role that particular PERSON is due to fill. I suspect I am one of the exceptions to the general rule.

South Yorkshire has never been and will never be a tory hotspot. That is not the issue. The point I am making is that after months of negative press, public criticism, protesting, and slagging off all over these forums about labour MPs, Labour Councils, Labour Councillors, Julie Dore, Alan Billings etc etc for their general incompetence, Hillsborough, the grooming scandal, Sheffield development (or lack of it), police cover ups, wasted monies of white elephants, bus changes and god knows what else, What does the local electorate go and do. Elect exactly the same again. You don't think that an issue?

My god. If anything sums up the voting sheep mentality of folk round here its the recent results. http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2016-05-06/dr-alan-billings-wins-south-yorkshire-police-commissioner-election/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36206692 What's that phrase. Stick a red rosette onto a donkey and people would vote for it. Seriously, what disaster actually needs to happen before people stop voting red just cos their dad did and their granddad did and their great granddad did.

So they should. When the government and us taxpayers and paying those teachers to TEACH those kids why shouldn't a little analysis as to how much they are learning and retaining take place. Kids of that age are not totally dumb. Their minds are perfectly capable of learning and god forbid even taking a test on a subject. Its what teachers are supposed to do. How else are they and their respective education authorities supposed to judge how well kids are progressing, which ones need extra help, which ones may be more suited in a different group and how well a particular method is being taught. Namby pamby parents and lazy teachers trying to prevent something that is perfectly normal and has been done by generations of kids before. As others have said, we are not talking about a 3 hour sit in silence exam here for god sake. Just because its called a "test" does not mean the kids will actually realise it is one.

Like what Anna? Dictatorship? Tribal Ruling? In some countries people are killing themselves in wars to try to fight for their freedom to have a democratic vote as to who rules them. We take it so much for granted that less than half of the registered voting population cant even be bothered to turn up. When the election does happen we then spend the entire political term acting like babies with tit for tat arguments about why our preferred party didn't win. We vote for a PERSON not a party. We have an ample opportunity to read and listen to what a candidate says, what they PROPOSE to do and read their written pledges before they get in office. Once they are in that office, we can arrange to meet with that selected representative, write to that selected representative, view their entire political and published activities, view their office accounting, view their expenses and if we don't like them, we can vote to get rid of them next election. I concede - its not perfect. Corruption, bribary, manipulation applies. Unfortunately, NO system would stop that happening. However, lets open our eyes to what other countries have. What exactly do you want?

I don't want to sound like a party pooper but I have to agree with some of the other posters. These modern day school discos are becoming a bit of a farce. With frocks, limos, party buses and now horses people are putting more effort and money in to their little dahlings ending school term than some others put into their wedding days. This particular American import just keeps getting more and more inflated.

There are already 3 cinemas in the city centre. The Light will make it 4.

some people who have a very expensive private education and leave with very good qualifications can proceed to pee their career up the wall and end up in dead end jobs or out of work. Others who had little education and have no qualifications can proceed to learn at shop floor level, become management and/or set up their own successful businesses. Nobody's DNA puts them in a box as to what they career aspirations are. EVERYBODY has an opportunity in their lives to make their own career and own lifestyle choices. Crybabies jealous of other people's success sit there making excuses. The rest of society get on with their lives. ---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 13:28 ---------- Well then you deserve to have your dole cut until you grow up and learn that the state does not owe you a lifestyle.

Exactly the same in mine. All these people commenting about low command of language or low intelligence are hugely mistaken. Its part of language. I work for a large corporate law firm and people around here swear like Dockers. As the great Billy Connolly once said..... sometimes "shoo" and "go away" just wont do.

There might be other reasons why the operators want all the seats full before they start the ride. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863991/Footage-Cardiff-Winter-Wonderland-attraction-shows-terrifying-moment-two-carriages-collided-200ft-air.html

Here is the headline news "0.07% of the population attend a demonstration March in London" **for clarity by the way even taking top line figures is still only 0.10% of the entire voting electorate from 2015*** The reason the mainstream news outlets don't give it full blown 30 minute top story coverage is quite frankly nobody cares. This is one of the many many many "anti-austerity" "anti-tory" "anti-rich person" marches they have had this year. In fact had every bloody year. They are attended by the exact same bus loads of students, liberals, union mouthpieces and rent-an-activist organisations. Their message is, as always, totally stupid without any practical basis in reality. Tax the rich. Give to the poor is not good enough. We are not some universal socialist utopia where everyone is equal. Some people have money. Others don't. However, we are also not some third world country. Every citizen has a bare minimum standard of living provided by the state - a standard of living, by the way, which despite what the rent a gob crowd thinks is far far more than many other countries give their citizens. Every citizen gets a bare minimum standard of healthcare. Every childbirth gets given a bare minimum level of money. Every child gets a bare minimum national standard of education. Every child keeps that free education right up until their teenage years. Anyone from any background and any education level can study at university with one of most flexible and fair payment plans ever. Nobody has to pay such fees back until they earn over certain limits and many never pay the fees at all. Unfair society? Unfairly treated citizens? My backside. There will always be people richer than others. There will always be those who are lucky enough to be popped out into the world in the right family and right time. There will always be those who work harder than others and earn a lot more money. Nothing a load of windbags clogging up London streets is going to change that. Look at the figures - these people are not the voice of the electorate. ---------- Post added 17-04-2016 at 16:17 ---------- The rich pay tax just like the rest of the population. They pay what the HMRC says they are legally obliged to pay. IF a loophole is deemed to be illegal then it can no longer be used and those who did can be retrospectively punished for using it (a first as a rule of law and quite frankly horrifying that a Court could reach a decision - watch out for retrospective application of a law change being applied to other things in the future - perhaps it might not so loudly be celebrated then) Do you not consider that when your in the red you have to cut spending? Of course it affects the poor more than the rich. The poor are the ones who use public services the most. However, why should that mean that cuts aren't necessary. I bet if you do the maths you will find that the rich contribute significantly more than the poor and would use less of the public services their taxes fund. Quite frankly the whole thing is sour grapes. The public spoke. The tories won a majority election using the same voting method as all elections before. The same voting method as the coalition in 2010. The same voted methods that kept labour in power for 13 years before that. Some of the more moronic in society fuelled by left wing media and the union gobs cant get that into their thick skulls. They want tories out. They want the rich to be driven away with their jealously and faux outrage despite their own side's mass hypocrisy and controversy. Well get over it. You had your chance. You will have another go in 4 years. I would suggest they should expel their energy into preparation for that. They are not exactly excelling themselves so far with their decisions.

But this is the old story. You say the Adelphi and Burton building "could easily be re-used" but could they really? Say im looking for a small office space for my company. I have a choice between a purpose build block on the technology park or the Burton building. The modern block is fully DDA compliant, has all the proper correct fire equipment, escapes, toilet facilities, heating, electrics, telephony cabling and lighting needed for an office to run. OR I buy the beautiful looking but not suitable Burton Building. I have to then spend money on renovations to make the interior suitable, money on conversation to make the building DDA compliant (including installation of a lift or major renovation of any existing lift), I have to ensure that all the fire escape route are compliant and if not, spend money on modernising them. I may wish to do that, if the look of the building will be of benefit to my business. However, if its not - why would I spend such money? You cannot force a tenant to move in. You cannot make someone spend money to keep a building in condition if it doesn't serve a purpose. You comment about the Tower of London but lets be serious. The tower is of historical national importance. It is still used and attracts thousands of tourists every day paying money for its upkeep and operation. IF the Adelphi or Burton Building had the same attraction and footfall I would be on your side. Fact is, however nice they look, they don't. They are just a old shop (like dozens of other Burton Buildings around the country) and an old cinema (just like many of the others around the country). If enough people want to save it - they will. Just look at the brilliant work that people have done saving the Abbeydale Picture House. However, "it looks nice" is not enough for thousands of pounds to be spent on keeping something standing with nobody in it. ---------- Post added 17-04-2016 at 12:38 ---------- I agree but this of course is the problem when you build something commercially with a strict budget. Its not a modern phenomenon either. There are plenty of identical and bland old designs too - we just see them with different (and rather rose tinted) eyes now. Fact is, as someone pointed out earlier, any building which goes the extra mile in terms of aesthetics is nearly always done for vanity reasons and never commercial. Just take a look around Central London. We have the Natwest Tower, The Gherkin, The cheesegrater and of course the Shard. Why do those towers look so unique when compared to the hundreds of other identi-kit glass cubes that surround them? - vanity. When building those particular ones budget was overruled by showing off. The NatWest wanted a bold statement for their international office HQ The gherkin was a statement piece in response to the IRA bombing of the old Baltic Exchange The Cheesegrater wanted to claim the crown of the tallest building in the City of London. The Shard wanted the crown as the tallest building in Western Europe. There will be dozens of others built for the same reasons over the years. There will be thousands of others drawn on paper but never approved. However, this is the exception to the rule 90% of the time a building is built down to the penny and vanity and aesthetics rarely outweigh the budget and practical needs.

Yes very democratic. Any ideas what that blanket removal of ALL statutory instruments might do to individuals and companies? Personally, I prefer to see the facts from both sides, the proposals from both sides and be given a CHOICE. Last time I looked we don't live in a dictatorship Jeffrey.

That means that the image took must be (at the very least) 40 years ago. Yes, a time when out of town shopping was still in its early stages, most families still only had one or no car at all, there was little competition from big warehouse style all purpose stores (supermarkets still focused on food), there was no pound stores or big discount retailers such as B&M and of course there was no large scale office and commercial developments surrounding the area. Oh yeah, internet shopping of course did not exist. You don't think the above factors had some influence on the changes to footfall and shopping habits??? Yeah, of course like the rest of the Sheffielders with their heads firmly buried in the past, its all to easy to say "its all the council's fault" Life has moved on.

I see this argument raised a lot but there is always a big question. Its all very well keeping these old nice looking buildings but WHO is going to pay for their upkeep? With the rare exception of buildings of historical interest with a large tourist following/national importance or other feature, most old buildings (no matter how beautiful) eventually stop serving a purpose. They become increasingly expensive to maintain, inhabitable, unsafe, non compliant with changing safety/health laws or simply no longer practical. You cannot force an owner to redevelop. You cannot force tenants to stay in a building just to keep it a nice thing to look at. Someone has to pay the bill. If there is a genuine demand and genuine reason to save an old building, we already have ways of preserving them. That's why we have English heritage. That's why certain buildings get listed. However not every nice looking historical building in every city can or should be saved.

Makes sense to me. There are an estimated 2.4 million benefits claimants to potentially investigate as oppose the 500,000 so called rich people to potentially investigate. Most staff to the biggest task. Isn't that just plain logical. If we look at the pure maths and divide down the figures we could very easily say that both the benefits investigators and the HMRC tax investigators would be allocated around 650 - 700 cases each to look at. How much more symmetry would people want. If this was a staff resource analysis it couldn't be more perfect.