ECCOnoob

So? What has that go to do with ATOS. Everyone suffers from stress and anxiety at some point in their lives. It does not necessarilly stop them being fit for work or affect their capabilities for work. "stress" is not necessarily a life long disability which demands government assistance and long term support. I, like many others get stressed most days. I have a demanding job with an even more demanding commute. I don't sit on my backside demanding handouts. You are blurring issues now because you have failed to evidence your previous ludicrous claim that ATOS killed 10,600 people. You cannot prove that they would not have died in any event. You cannot prove that the stress they were allegedly suffering was accelerated or exacerbated by anything the government did or didn't do. You cannot even prove that those people were killed as a direct consequence of their mental condition. You just providing a typical failed response. If you cannot back something up with facts -try to change the subject.

What exactly are fancy and pointless about these positions. Have you actually been through a job description of each and every one. Have you broke down the chain of command, checked through the direct reports and control responsibilities. Have you done a workflow projection to show where there tasks would be re-allocated to and the personnel required to complete them. ..... what that? NO, oh never mind then. Its the same argument all time time. Oooh look at what they earn. They don't deserve it. Their job is a non job.... waaa waaa waaa. If you feel so strongly why don't you actually bother to find out what their jobs are. What exactly they do and then decide if its a needed position. All well and good shouting your big mouth off about "pointless positions" but then to follow it up by "....what the hell is a xxx" You brought it up. Why don't you go and find out.

"Probably". In other words you don't know. You have no evidence and all you have done is posted a biased article from some leftie union rag. ATOS are quite right. Parkinsons and Cancer does not necessarily stop people from working and just because SOME people may have died after being declared fit to work is not necessarily anything directly linked to them. People with terminal illnesses die. People with no illnesses die. My father had cancer and worked right up until his last 3 weeks. Wild horses would no have stopped him. Others never work at all from the second they get an "illness" because they use it as some excuse despite their capacity to. As for this "stress". Mental health is a very complex issue. Just because you have a mental illness does not stop SOME people from working. Others with severe mental illness would be unable to cope with life whether there was any government intervention or not - that's a human condition not ATOS' fault. Its not black and white and just because some article throws around some numbers and shock headlines doesn't necessarily mean is accurate.

Public liability insurance and/or commercial liability insurance and/or employer liability insurance and/or legal protection insurance like every other organisation has. What do you think happens when a compensation claim is put against a large organisation such as that. You really think tv licence funding would go towards legal settlements?

Jesus, how many idiots are going to come out with this statement. Saville was a mental case and any cover up spreads far far wider than the doors of the BBC. Compensation payments are sod all to do with the licence fee. The licence fee is not just paying for what you see on BBC One. Never has and never will. It covers not only 16 television channels but also an commercially independent news service, 55 radio stations plus subsidiaries into the UKTV digital network which created the freeview platform and also provides content into many of those free to view digital channels. Other subsidiaries also go towards set up and operation of community radio and open access broadcasting through Community TV. Finally it pays for the online services, red button services and captioning for the visual and hearing impaired. All that for just over £12.00 a month and people wont stop bitching and moaning about it. Its pathetic. Kill it off, put ads all over the BBC, stop freeview being free, bring back the radio licence fees lets all go to pay as you view/listen. How does that suit ya? Just watch the crying start then once the subscription fees rocket. Kiss bye bye to any independent journalism. Kiss bye bye to any programming free from sponsorship/bias or product placement. You want to see what commercially biased news looks like - try Sky News or Fox. No thank you.

You will struggle to find anything bargain basement that central. Season tickets are usually the cheapest option and if they are too expensive you might be best searching further out. Victoria Quay car park is only £3 a day and there are a few others around the back of the West Bar / Kelham Island which are around £2 a day.

Sorry do NMW workers only live in Sheffield. I was giving you examples to counter your argument that nobody can possible find somewhere to live for £200 a month rent. I succeeded in that. Want more, go speak to an estate agent.

Planet Earth. Unlike you seemingly. Just a few examples of studio rooms for those on a low income.... http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-44142697.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-33645807.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-50667524.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-50697545.html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-49547933.html I never said that living on such a low income is easy or ideal. But its perfectly possible to survive without the handout of the state all the time. Something that the labour government and their lobby groups never seem to get into their thick heads. ---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 17:57 ---------- So what? Its a roof over your head which is a basic human need. Oh its in a less desirable area? And??? Get a better job with better pay, find a second income, borrow some money if you want to move up. When was it the state's responsibility to fund your preferred accommodation in your preferred area.

Boom! I was just waiting for you come out with that stock argument. Yes poor old single people how on earth do they cope eh? How do they survive on around £960.00 a month from NMW job. Rents from as little as £200+ a month for a studio room or small flat. Perfectly able to. Low income - YES. Basic lifestyle - YES. Not ideal - YES. Impossible - NO. You still not shown me any desperate need for working tax benefits to be provided to people who are earning a wage. The reason I raised child benefit is because this is something which has been an automatic right for decades - not in the same lines as the wtc/ftc nonsense that the labour party brought in. I personally, don't believe that it should exist either but that would just fuel the "wont somebody think of the children" brigade. Dole is supposed to be temporary. Its called JOBSEEKERS allowance for a reason. No job after 6 months - no dole. See how many "jobseekers" up their game with that rule.

You're quite right. It might not be possible to BUY a house on min wage. Don't buy a house then. That's something people usually save up for and do later in their career when they have moved up the ladder a bit. As for the other things you mention YOU are the one talking rubbish. Its perfectly possible to rent and buy the basics to live on minimum wage. I don't doubt for a second that is not easy and certainly a lifestyle will be limited BUT its still possible and still done by plenty of people up and down the country. An average couple both working min wage jobs full time bring in around £1900 a month. That's after tax and without any sort of top up benefit at all. Have 1 child and that increases by around £100 a month from child benefits. You are really going to tell me that they cannot find somewhere to live and buy their basic goods on that amount? Perfectly reasonable as a entry level of pay for an low skilled low qualified position.

It worked perfectly well up to 2003. The streets were not littered with people living in cardboard boxes. There were not mobs of people outside every supermarket screaming they could not afford food. Funny how people just seemed to deal with it. Their wage was their wage and they managed to live the best they could afford to do so. Along came Labour and their union puppet masters screaming poverty on everyone. Suddenly everyone MUST have at least wtc to survive. Experts were suddenly reporting that people were "living in modern day poverty" Suddenly everyone must have a pay increase in order to buy things and put a roof over their head. Suddenly everyone is not able to afford food and must have handouts from foodbanks. What's changed? Cost of living REALLY increased that much? horse crap. More like people's expectations of what a living wage is has been totally blurred by the rent a gob unions and a fictitious minimum standard of living which includes such ludicrous things such as computers, mobiles, car, luxury foods, digital television and computer games has been created. Everyone thinks they must have X as a bare minimum and if they cant afford it, the state should pay. Time to stop this madness. Benefits were supposed to be for those in GENUINE NEED. Low income is NOT poverty. Stop the handouts and just watch how many working people suddenly realise that they CAN afford to live on the wage they earn. You know, just like everyone seemed to be able to do perfectly well before this failed idea came along.

:thumbsup: Finally, the most sensible post I have seen in ages. People seem to think they are OWED a living. I too started on around the same moving up to the dizzying heights of £5600 a YEAR for my first full time job. I found a way to manage. It was tough but I survived and it made we want to keep moving up the ladder, training, learning, further education to get to the highest of my grades and move up to an income bracket I wanted. Nobody wants to do that anymore. They all want to go to uni, live the "student lifestyle" and then walk into a £50k+ job with a team of staff at their beck and call. Nobody is prepared to start on the bottom rung. Start as a tea boy and doing the photocopying. They all think the world owes them. Tax credits were a labour invention and should never have been brought in. People survived for years without such "top up" benefit. Its a joke. A living wage is making your money stretch for whatever purpose you can afford not some made up figure from a think tank.

Are we not being a little bit unfair on the drinks companies here. They are hardly corrupting children specifically. Most energy drinks of any kind are not marketed at children at all. Gullible adults maybe but they are hardly covered in cartoon characters or advertised during kids tv. I find the quote from the expert rather misleading... "Children are being deceived into drinking large cans of this stuff, thinking they are going to improve their performance at school, during sports, or even on a night out. I don't know any energy drinks that say any such words. Sports maybe but only in the sense that they contain glucose and sugar which, guess what, increases energy by its natural reaction. Nothing misleading there. As for "night out". All these kids off clubbing are they?? The point is valid as is the campaign to clamp down on such heavily sweetened drinks. I have no problem with that. However, I feel the inaccurate focus on Children is just misguided. All seems too much to me of ".....oh god wont somebody think of the children..." EVERYONE needs to clamp down on their sugar intake Most people know that any canned drink or energy drink is likely to contain ridiculous levels of caffeine, chemicals and sugars. However, they taste nice and that's why people buy them. People know they are unhealthy but still consume them. Same can apply to fatty foods, sweets, chocolate, alcohol or cigs. Knee jerk reactions and finger pointing is not particularly effective. Awareness and education is the key.

Seems another pile of crap from the Labour PR office known as The Mirror. Jesus, must be getting desperate.

Of course it doesn't work like that. Public money does not automatically mean a public right to access. I cant just go wandering into a hospital operating room when I feel like it nor can I just cut through the middle of the town hall offices because its a short cut to my car park. Lots of things are paid for by public money. That includes things that do not and should be free and accessible to any tom dick and harry when they feel like and for whatever purpose. The train station bridge is a perfect example SOME (NOT ALL) of which was paid for by public money. It was set up to allow an ease of link between the trains and trams. It was NOT designed or built to be a short cut to the city centre. It was NOT built as a public footpath as and when people use it. It was NOT built for the purposes of a public highway. If you have no business in the station, you have not right to use the bridge. That would apply in lots of other "public funded" buildings.

Fleeced the city for years?? Oh this one I've got to hear. With respect to the OP, I too would be very sad to see it go. However, someone has to pay for renovation and upkeep. Where will it come from? You cannot force a company/organisation to occupy a building if they don't want to. Nor can there be unlimited funds to keep something standing without some kind of income. Perhaps people could treat is as a tourist attraction and us locals so desperate to keep it could pay money to look around it every now and then? ....NO? Oh, well never mind. The reality is that very very often its far cheaper to build new than renovate the old. The work that would be required for a prospective occupier may completely outway any commercial benefit.

Very simple that one. A: http://humanitarian.worldconcern.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Dhaka-slum-1024x689.jpg B: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pixies/2009/3/17/1237327875546/A-portrait-of-21st-centur-001.jpg A is real poverty. People living in destitution with literally nothing. Many starving. Unable to access clean water. B is what is laughingly described as "21st centaury poverty" Yeah right. Poverty is NOT living on a low income. Poverty is NOT having a roof over your head, tv, furnishings, food in the fridge and a basic standard of living paid for or subsidised by the state. With respect to the OP and the Article from Labour's Press Office errm, I mean the Daily Mirror. I can only say that its the biggest load of horse crap I have ever seen. On the breadline? The people doing this study and the linked morons who seemingly have redefined what a basic human need is, don't even know the meaning of the word.

Allegedly is the right word. I have not seen any such source to show that they are only taking 40% of their projected takings. In any case, even if it was true. A projection is just that. An estimate. A guess. A figure plucked out of thin air. How many PROJECTED figures are actually accurate. We see it all the time about benefits, costs, footfall, users, sales, customers etc.. etc.. People power can do naff all. Another one banging on about this "unwanted" store causing all these problems. What are you on about. The road changes were going to happen whether sainsburys was built or not. The changes you see now were all part of the big highways masterplan along with the new junctions, layouts, lights and bus corridor. The only change was the right turn addition and claywheels lane section which in the big scheme is bugger all difference. The "problems" you state would have happened in any event. Now, since we seem to have hit loony land, perhaps you two would like to answer me this. IF this store is so unwanted and thus so woefully underused. How can there be so much traffic causing all this "chaos" because of it??? You cant have it both ways.

Who never wanted it?? I bloody did. So did all the other customers. Im sure the staff / builders / contractors whom its creation employed are happy its there. What are you planning on boycotting it for? A bit of OCCASIONAL traffic?? :loopy: Oh boo hoo sometimes there is a queue of traffic. Lets all boycott Meadowhall too shall we, after all that creates some right mayhem on the M1. Oh and every other shop and supermarket too whilst we are at it. What a load of tosh. I go at least twice a week at various times of the day and never NOT been able to get to it. I have no idea what sales it is or isn't taking and have not seen any evidence to verify such. Projections are always overestimated in my opinion so are hardly a credible source. What I will say is that compared to the often scruffy and empty shelves filled Morrisons and the Chav Central that is Asda. Sainsburys is a breath of fresh air.

Are you on this planet? Thousands of brits flock over to Thailand, Africa, Europe for 6m, 12m gap years without learning the language. They get into trouble and have to rely upon the local authorities to sort them out. They expect and demand documents and translators to be in English. Just look at some of these wonderful human interest documentaries and reality shows. No insurance. Little money. Drunken behaviour and then leaving it to the local authorities to sort them out. There are loads of expats living in their summer holiday homes with a very weak grasp of the local language. They resort to the SLOW SHOUTING AND POINTING methods of communication. There are specialist firms in law and finance who target the brit abroad to provide services in their language without having to deal with those dirty locals. Just as we have thousands of foreign students over here. We have thousands of ours going elsewhere to study in the far east and Africa. Do you really they all have a understanding of the language or do you suppose they get translation and interpretation help? It works both ways and despite the Sheffield Star trying to make a mountain out of molehill. The costs of translation is piffle compared to some other aspects of budget allocation. I bet they spent more on biscuits and fancy hospitality dinners than they do on translation services each years.

Are all Sheffield Citizens fluent in English as a first language? Do you, of course, speak all world languages and fluently deal with written and spoken information with ease when you go abroad then? No.... Didn't think so.

My point is that a big finger pointing shouty shouty media outpour and lots of point scoring hot air from politicians proves nothing yet. An investigation is not proof of anything. They are INVESTIGATING. Here is a little interesting snippet about this Scandal from the horses mouth. While HMRC believed that up to 150 people named in the documents could have faced criminal charges only three names were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service and that led to a single prosecution. One. One prosecution of a CUSTOMER out of thousands and so far no conclusive prosecution against HSBC. I will actually wait for something to happen before I jump on the bandwagon. I will actually wait for some official action rather than what the media *who are desperate to sell papers* say before I jump on the bandwagon. That's my point. Clear enough?

Legally or illegally? If an accountant/bank/lawyer tell me how I can reduce my tax liabilities legally or place money elsewhere legally where it does not have to be declared they are perfectly entitled to do so and I am perfectly entitled to use such a scheme. What's your point?

Average speed check. Just like Stocksbridge bypass or A616.

I agree but until they actually change the tax laws nobody "avoiding" tax will be prosecuted with anything. Its something Ed Sillyband and all the twitterati don't get into their thick heads. You cannot force a company/billionaire/cash in hand tradie/benefits cheat into being moral. Whether fair or not, you cannot force anyone to pay more tax than they LEGALLY have to. Whether fair or not, you cannot stop clever tax lawyers and accountants setting up LEGAL schemes to reduce tax. Prosecution can only be brought if its against the law. So far the majority of it hasn't. Until the laws are changed it will remain the case. All this hot air being blown about investigations into the HMRC, naming and shaming, mud slinging have not impressed me. In fact to me, it shows more a desperate attempt at appealing to voters with snappy soundbites than any real understanding of the root problem. TAX LAWS are what needs to be attended to. A rousing speech about that would be more impressive.