ECCOnoob

How can you not see it working like that. Its obvious. Lets say you have a shop. You have the lowest level lowest skilled workers earning NMW at £12.6k a year. You have supervisors or keyholders earning around £16k a year. You have deputy managers earning around £22k and upper/general managers earning around £30k. Now NMW goes up to the magical "Living wage" of £10 p/h as is screamed around by certain red parties. Now you have the lowest level lowest skilled workers earning NMW at £16k. Do you think the supervisors would accept that? So of course their wage would have to go up to suddenly its jumps to around £20k a year? Bit close to a duty manager salary that. Don't think the managers would be very happy so their wage would need go up too. Suddenly the General Manager is thinking about their own...... on and on it does. People don't work for fun. The work for money. If they are doing extra work over somebody else they expect to be paid. Start upping one grade and you will have to up others. That brings more costs to the business or eats into their profits. Profits go down, business puts prices up or cuts overheads (usually by way of redundancies on staff). Its all about balance. Im not saying that the NMW does not need to be looked at. But this obsession with a "Living Wage" is just totally ridiculous. What the hell is a "Living Wage" what exactly is this magical bare minimum standard. Food in the fridge and a roof over your head? Internet, a smartphone and sky tv? A car? Two holidays a year? Less than 20 years ago there was no such thing as a minimum wage. People were earning £2.00 - £3.00 an hour. They still ate. They still bought things. They still went out. They still drove cars. They still went on holiday. Has inflation REALLY shot up that much between 1997-2015. Does it really justify a pay in 4x NMW increase?

Would the situation have been different if a FEMALE had come and sat with you? What would you have done then?

The "prank" that unharmed anyone received no "sentence" other than some community service and a fine. The more serious offence was punished with 18 months in prison. Two completely different types of punishment. One was treated with a slap on the wrist. The other locked away in prison for a term up to 18 months (despite the daily mail's predictable ASSUMPTION that they would out in 6 which of course is a load of balls if the prisoner was on any sanctions during their tariff) It may appear lenient but I don't really know what more people would expect for a (....although shocking) non fatal, non weapon, non pre-mediated attack. The victims injuries are shocking to look at yes, but he was still able to take a selfie, was out of hospital in a week and returned to work within 12 weeks. Psychological problems ongoing yes but physically not suffered any catastrophic. Unfortunately judges can only work within the sentencing guidelines they are set. I agree that they should be overhauled but until such day comes their hands are tied. Nobody, including the DM knows anything about the case. Nobody knows anything about the attacker. He may be on drugs, he may have mental health issues he may have 101 other reasons which mitigated his actions and a Judge can only made a judgment on what he is presented with and rule on what his guidelines say.

I know, I was just thinking the same thing. What is going on with people these days. Nobody does or says anything. Its always skulk away and then moan about it after. God sake. How about a simple..... "Sorry, I just want be left alone and not disturbed thank you..." That might have been a start. Situation could have been resolved in seconds. ---------- Post added 09-02-2015 at 17:00 ---------- Why?? Did this man look at you funny? follow you around? attempt to touch you, attack you? He MAY have been a perfectly innocent guy who thought in a totally empty café it MAY have been nice to have a chat with someone. What a society we have become. Paranoia paranoia paranoia.

What "sentence". He has not been put in jail. He is not on a community service. He is not walking around with a tag. Boo hoo he has been ordered to pay a couple of hundred quid fine. Boo hoo, he has been banned from attending football matches. GOOD. If this 29 year old civil servant wants to behave like a thug damn right they should be banned. Perhaps they will learn to grow up over the next three years. Magistrates made a perfectly good decision in my opinion.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding the situation. YOU have closed your account and moved to another bank. YOU are no longer a customer registered with them and obviously cannot continue to use their services. Why on earth would you think you would be able to retain full access to their online systems as and when you choose if you are no longer a customer? As others have said, If you need any copy statements etc you will need to ask for them. Whilst the information was about you it is owned and controlled by the bank. Their transactions. Their systems. Their online service.

Its a traditional education thing. Pre-decimalisation it was easier to do most calculations by using up to x12 tables. It seems as good a place as any to go up to and has been well used as standard level of curriculum for years. Many believe (including myself) that repetition and committing to memory as you say is a far more effective way (albeit more boring) than learning by other methods. We have a clear lack of literacy and numeracy in this country which seems to be getting worse and worse. The soppy creative learning approaches may well get the grades but I don't see it as a roaring success in the real world. I see many a school leaver and even further education leaver joining the workplace with very poor spelling, grammar and numeracy skills. Whilst of course the age of technology must be embraced, seeing professional emails and documents with "txt spk" being used and staff members failing to do even the most basic of sums without calculators rather concerning. Maybe kids would prefer to learn times tables like the French method up to x20. Im sure that would go down a storm.

Why did you choose to park there then. Why didn't you find somewhere else. You obviously wanted JL so where else other than the city centre would you expect to find them. You are not honestly going to tell me that you thought a multi-storey bang in the middle of the city centre was free! Threads like this make me laugh. It'll be the same people who will be complaining why Sheffield never has any "quality or boutique stores" "why we don't have a Harvey Nichols or Selfridges like Leeds or Manchester" Answer: see above. Belly aching about paying for parking in a CITY CENTRE. PS: Just out of curiosity for the OP here is what the equivalent sort of car park attached to a main department store in Manchester costs. 1 hour £4.00 - 1 to 2 hours £8.00 - 2 to 4 hours £16.00

Then they pick a GCSE which involves absolutely no spending whatsoever. In fact, why do people bother having children at all. They just cost too much money right? Maybe you think the state should pick the up the tab for people who choose to breed. God sake. £55 is piddle all for a trip with accommodation, travel and meals. If parents cant afford that for a one off school education trip they have a serious problem. Even more so when the government, which provides all this free education, also gives parents £13-£20 each week in benefit for each child.

You are talking about top up benefits and temporary benefits. Its not the same. Of course they should be means tested and of course there should be consideration to what assets/savings people had. Im sure if Katie Price wanted to apply for tax credits or housing benefit she would have the knock back. We are talking about Disability Benefits. Disability benefits which are provided to people with life long chronic conditions. People who need support and assistance for the rest of their lives. Not even in the same league. ---------- Post added 29-01-2015 at 18:50 ---------- Can we also get the record straight once and for all. I am sick of repeating it. The benefit is not for Katie Price. Its for her son. KP is not jumping into a taxi and getting the monies from taxpayers. Its for Harvey. Specific monies for specific needs. Assessed, btw, each and every year by the social workers which surprise surprise is also capped/chopped/adjusted/removed as and when government decides.

I am supportive of your post and agree with the majority but I have to take exception with the last line. She is not "claiming for a taxi" for god sake. Her severely disabled dependant requires support because he cannot self travel. Just like every other disabled person the state will provide whatever financial, healthcare, educational or physical support they will need. It has not and should not ever be based upon what someone's parents has in the bank. Disability benefit to get them through their lives. There is no choice in the matter. Its not something they can decide they don't need any more. They don't suddenly get better and stop needing it. In this instance its a taxi service to a specific school. The BENEFIT is for him. You know just like the one of the "people who actually need them" This seeming resentment on forums, in the media and spouted by certain leaders against seemingly anyone and everyone with a slightly above average income is becoming very vicious and unnecessary. What's next?? People over xxxx income will be no longer about to walk on state funded pavements, use state funded hospitals, have their bins emptied by using state funded waste services.... They pay into the system just like the rest of us. Its unfortunate and difficult enough trying to raise a child with a severe disability and despite a wad in the bank, care and requirements never stop and will go well beyond any trickle payment of benefit. That applies to everyone in unfortunate enough to be in a similar circumstance rich or poor.

Calm down. I said the words "...serial "jobseekers" leaching money out of the system year after year without any intention of getting off their backsides..." I never said ALL jobseekers. The "stereotyping" is about the same level as the criticism, abuse and general ignorance which what gets splashed around about anyone who dares to earn above anything more than minimum wage, those who are fortunate enough to have more than average income, those who have more than an average sized house. They are all accused of being tax avoiding, out of touch, spoilt uncaring scummy bankers. Fair? NO, but clearly doesn't stop people pointing fingers. It works both ways.

Firstly Unity bank is part owned by the Coop (albeit currently up for sale). A majority stake is owned by several trade unions. That to me sits as very uncomfortable position for a majority union owned bank to be in trust of finances from a Government Organisation. A combination of the dented Coop and trade union egos. I certainly would not be happy about that. As for the rest of your post I don't really know why you have singled out Barclays in such a way. Yes, they had a few scandals but nothing more than any of the others. They didn't have any bailout. They did not have anything like the RBS levels of fraud and incompetence. They are not costing the taxpayers billons of pounds unlike Lloyds BG. Morally no bank is ever going to cut it as a squeaky clean reputation but to be honest, like most businesses, banks don't make money out of being moral. LEGAL is all they aim for. That no doubt leaves a bitter taste with some people but at the end of the day they have to bank with someone. I would rather it be with an established, well grounded bank like Barclays or HSBC rather than some unknown and untested ego project like Unity or some dying horse like RBS.

So he should to. The benefit is for his DISABLED SON not Cameron. The same would apply to anyone else who works or dares to have some money in the bank and has a severely disabled child. They don't stop being disabled as they get older! The same applies to serial breeders who work or dare to have some assets but they are still entitled to child benefit because its for THE CHILD. There will be many things that Mr Cameron will provide for his son well above and beyond what he would receive in benefits. Just the same as every parent with a disabled dependant may do and their family members. He has paid into the system through his working life. He has earned his money and paid his taxes. Probably a damn sight more than the serial "jobseekers" leaching money out of the system year after year without any intention of getting off their backsides. How dare you question a claimant with a born disability being given what they are entitled to for life just because of the income level of their parents. That has sod all to do with anything. Disability benefit is NOT received by choice. Just like the whole disgusting article this whole thread is based upon (with its completely misleading title). NO Katie price is not receiving taxpayer funded travel costs. Its for her DISABLED SON. He needs special care and special transport because he cant self travel. Its HIS benefit.

Yawn indeed. Compassion is something I have for those in genuine need. Those who have a severe limitation in their lives that they cannot control and cannot recover from. Those who live in such dire conditions with absolutely no hope of survival. Those who go without food, water and basic human needs. Those born with or developed such disabilities which has a catastrophic affect on their lives without access to any support/respite/accommodation/medication or healthcare. That does not apply to 99.9999...% of people living in the 6th wealthiest nation of earth with a welfare state that provides a basic living standard for every born citizen and adopted national from birth onwards. I say again, even despite the loopholes. Low pay is not POVERTY. I will stand corrected with regards minimum wage in care work and yes, I am aware of the loopholes - stretched hours, no paid travel to work, no paid time whilst in sleepover at a service users home. However, lots of people don't get travel time including in their working hours. Lots of people don't get any paid overtime. People, particularly on a fixed salaried wage don't get a penny for working over. We have a luxury in this country. If you don't like it? - you do something about it and seek another job. Don't find another job and the state will provide for you until you do. Now, unnecessary personal insult aside, care to answer my points about education? Homelessness? What is realistically defined as Poverty? Certainly not the sob stories you are spouting.

Why not? The yummie mummy and Chelsea Tractor brigade will probably stand in queues double that length to pay for goods at Tarbucks, CostaLot Coffee and Café Neos.

Im am not constantly slating Leeds as you seem to think. What I am doing is trying to bring some balance to your seeming delusion that everything Leeds does is perfect and every project is a roaring success. It isn't. You seem to pop up on every single thread that has anything to do with a new Sheffield project to slip in that Leeds has xxx and Leeds is building a new xxx and Leeds has just secured xxx Whenever anyone (not just me) has pointed out some of your city's failures suddenly your ears are closed and its all la la la... I admit that Sheffield is behind. It always has been and always will be. Sheffield never had the financial trades and professional population that Leeds has. Leeds is a major financial centre, plus with big legal, media, banking, insurance firm in the location there is more spending power which warrants a selection of high end retail. But let not be silly about it. You are not seriously going to tell me that the much famed Clarence Dock was anything other than a complete failure. The ever rebranding Schofields Centre/Headrow Centre/The Core is a waste of space and has been half empty for years. The run down St Johns and Merrion Centres are nothing other than just that. run down. Poundland springing up on Briggate, just a few units up from Harvey Nichols front door is not a sign of a booming premium label trade. Even the glorious trinity has spent some time getting tenants. I remember going not long after its big shiny launch to see plenty of to let signs. Lets not also forget that building these constant shiny new malls and fighting to fill them with tenants has a knock on effect elsewhere. A company moving into say Trinity may leave an empty unit of the Headrow. A shiny new John Lewis might take trade away from Debenhams or House of Fraser and thus lead to another empty unit. ....the point is, Sheffield does have some problems BUT so does Leeds. Just because you are first to market doesn't always mean better. Admit it. Leeds has an obsession with building something first and desperately try and fill it later. Sometimes not always a smart move.

Aye. Only difference this time is that its win-win for the supermarket chains. Big stores lose appeal > custom and profits go up at the local stores > local stores seen as to expensive > big stores get more trade again. Round and round but it all goes into the same collective pockets.

You really hit the nail on the head. Whilst its sad to see it go for those who were regular shoppers clearly the fact is that they did not have enough customers. I was aware of it but never been in. Never a shop I would have thought of going to TBH. Just a shop in the background as I wizz past to Waterstones or to the Pasty Shop. I cant have been the only one who didn't go in.

Yippie! They can add to the list of unoccupied units scattered all over the St Johns Centre, Merrion Centre and "The Core" oh and Clarence Dock and even empty units now starting to appear on Briggate and Albion St. The only thing of any interest to me would be John Lewis but, we got one. Had one for years.

Right, firstly. Not everyone in the world can and should end up going to university. There are already too many graduates coming out with not enough jobs to go to. The value of certain degrees has dropped through the floor because grads are rolled out like a factory line. EDUCATION as a whole does not have to be higher. People have mandatory state school and freely available college education up to the age of 18. That give everybody a fair chance in life. Unlike some countries around the world, school is not exclusive for the privileged and wealthy only. Vocation and higher academia is open and available for all teenagers who choose to take it. There are plenty of ways to get up the career ladder that does not involve university. In any event, the majority of those who do want to go to university are funded through a student loan. This is a government loan open to anyone of any age wishing to apply for a course. It even applies to open university courses so mature adults can get one too. Its a non credit checked loan which has the most soft payment terms ever. Yes they maybe racking up a debt of 9k a year BUT, have you actually looked at the facts of how these loans are paid back... Firstly nobody pays a penny until they are earning over £16900 a year. Secondly the repayments are at 9% which for most people on average post grad salaries are less than £100 a month. Thirdly, if your income falls or you are out of work the loan repayments cease until you start again. Fourthly, if you never end up paying it off within 30 years its written off entirely. Hardly and unfair and exclusive policy is it? What about all those countries that have no such schemes. I know full well what is available to genuine street homeless people. I spent over 10 years working for a legal aid firm dealing with social welfare. Its not the box ticking exercise I was talking about - which of course they get government funded support to complete enabling them to get such a house/flat/bedsit/secure accommodation in any event. I am talking about the fact that even street homeless have the option of going to a shelter or service which gives them somewhere to sleep and food in their belly. I never said that anyone deserves to be homeless and it has piddle all to do with being cleverer than anyone. What I am saying is that the actual amount of people who have NO OPTION but to be on the streets is minimal. We have social housing, elderly care homes, respite shelters, supported housing, hostels, B&B provision and for those still unfortunate enough to be out there, we have emergency accommodation shelters and communal food centres to get a hot meal. Have you seen what life is like in other countries? Have you any idea of what REAL poverty is? They would kill for even a slither of that kind of provision. Why does she work for BELOW minimum wage. That's illegal. Maybe she should report her employers as clearly by law she cant receive anything less. Sod all to do with unionised industry. If she is an employee she gets minimum wage. If she isn't then why doesn't she do something about it. I don't say its her fault at all that her partner walked out. But she is entitled to maintenance payments - is she not getting them? If not, then only SHE can get that sorted out. She needs to take action. She will of course be getting her child benefits for each kid. Presumably if she is on such a low income she will also get the other benefits that such people are entitled to and which the state provides for. I have said it four times now. The state provides for people in this country. They need to get out there and take what is available for them. If they are not - whose fault is that? You "get real". If your sob story examples are trying to convince me they are desperate and what IMO is really defined as "poverty" - it doesn't

They estimated that 300,000 people lined the route across Sheffield with a total of around 2.5 for the Yorkshire region. I would disagree that "most did not want to see" Figures quoted believe that the returns to the region in terms of local businesses was over £100million with Sheffield businesses raking in between 6-10million For once they actually did something right. Sheffield was all over the news as was the region as a whole. They just cant win. If the Council manage to secure a big event and its..... they are wasting money on something nobody wants! How many nurses would that pay for! Think of the children.. somebody think of the children! If the council don't bother trying to compete with other cities its then.... Oh, we never get anything! Why does Leeds always get things and we don't! Why are we never on the telly with good things! We don't we ever win bids! How come xx Bar/Restaurant/Club/Shops never come here! Why is our city always behind! Which is then always followed up by.... How much! Rip off joint! Im not paying that! Jokers, why would they open here! Never going in there! Its too la de da! ROUND AND ROUND IT GOES. Seriously who would want to be a Councillor here. I would have done my nut by now.

Why was he "begging for the price of a B&B". We have mental health care in this country. The man should be treated. We have social housing in this country. Where does the man normally reside? What suddenly happened to this place? If the man is street homeless - guess what? We have homeless shelters in this country. Maybe you should have called the police if this "man" was in such a desperate state. Maybe he is from a secure unit and absconded. Maybe he does have accommodation but due to his symptoms he is not able to function. Maybe he was just full of BS. Either way. The state provides. NOT POVERTY Maybe you had better ask the "woman" you know what the hell she is doing with her £60.00 child benefit each and every week. The kids will have a father of course, is he out there earning? But maybe she is divorced or separated from the father. In which case he should be compelled to pay maintenance for the children. Why is that not happening? Does she or can she not work in some capacity? When you breed you need to pay for them. Its called responsibility. If she had work and was unfortunate to lose it, the state provides you with benefits to live on until you find other work. Woe is me and needs a food bank. My foot. Maybe think about managing money better. As usual and as said repeatedly. The state provides NOT POVERTY. Free state education between the ages of 5-18?? I would call that a proper education. Private school does not automatically equal better educated and better qualified. Plenty of children from state school make it into the real work with good qualifications and good jobs. You are sounding like a complete snob now. Free mandatory education for all children. NOT POVERTY.

Oh grow up Mekcy. "Financial hardship on 99% of the population" my foot. Firstly the national average stats are always to be taken with a pinch of salt because they are flawed twice with not only London weighting but also directors and executives salaries being in there. Is perfectly correct that 1 or 2 directors either owning or controlling entire sections of the business will earn 10x 15x more than the thousands of workers on the shop floor doing the work. Secondly, this country has absolutely no indication of what "financial hardship" actually means. The way the media and people such as yourself drone on with these sob stories about people losing their jobs, people having to tighten their belts a bit, people having to economise..... blah blah. We are in a recession. Of course people are having to tighten their belts. Adults in the real world know this and have done this for years. People adapt when times are hard and then relax when times get easier. Nothing new there. Yes some people will be unfortunate enough to come out of work, but the state provides. The state pays bills, puts a roof over your head, puts food in your mouth. The country is rich enough to have all these things. There are enough people earning money paying taxes to create the public purse which funds all those things. Poverty in this county seems to range from people having to live off tinned foods and fish fingers through to people who don't have the internet and a digital television. That is not POVERTY. That is just living on a low income. Poverty is a word used to describe people living in social housing, with pre-payment fuel and subsidised living costs through the state. That is not POVERTY. That is living on a low income. To hear the whinging, whining, moaning and media reporting on having to deal with "financial hardship" the world would think half the population was on the streets eating dog food out of a tin. When they saw the reality they would think we were mad to scream "hardship" 99% struggling are they??? You wouldn't know it from looking at a shopping centre or supermarket every weekend. You wouldn't know it from looking at the clothing people are buying and the contents of their (even state provided) homes. You wouldn't know if from the riots that were black Friday of people desperately trying to get their hands on the latest tech. You wouldn't know it from the amount of people wandering around with the latest smart phone, tablets, ipads. Even down to the worst affected people we provide. The money is generated. This is what is available to street homeless in the UK... http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article9023005.ece/alternates/w620/homeless.jpg http://www.qha.org.uk/sites/default/Images/BedsQOC2008.jpg Food in their belly. A roof over their head. Basic but provided. This is the other world we forget about.... http://static.ibnlive.in.com/ibnlive/pix/sitepix/12_2010/homeless_india.jpg Our "financial hardship" is so first world we even have eccentrics like this guy of the population who choose to live a homeless lifestyle despite having a job and earning money for himself.... http://www.piano-tuning.co.uk/lifestyle/ I wonder what the folks with no choice in the Third World would think of that. In a nutshell. Come back to me when they decide to strike over some REAL problems. Not just the same stuff that everyone else has been dealing with for years and will continue to deal with.

I think its complete nonsense. Speaking as an ex smoker too. To me your choice in fags comes down to two things. Brand loyalty or price. This is not pop or children's cereal or sportswear. People don't usually go for a fancy label or packet. If, like I used to, you smoke B&H You go to the shop and ask for 20 B&H. If they serve it in a white plan pack you are still going to go in and ask for 20B&H. If you just pick whatever is the cheapest brand, again you will still go into a shop and just ask for whatever is on offer the cheapest. A plain white pack will make sod all difference. I just think the whole thing is just a pathetic attempt by the government to be seen by the health campaign freaks as "doing something". The reality is that no government will ever have the balls or desire to completely ban smoking - they need the tax revenue too much.