ECCOnoob

Would depend on the circumstance obviously. Cancellation may be a little bit of an extreme step, but if you're talking about a performance being scaled back or adjusted or changed in the way it's delivered, then yes - that's more than reasonable. Any steps they can take to make sure that those kids "with issues", as you call them, are not excluded or deliberately singled out or made to feel uncomfortable should be taken and all forms part of the school's duty to look after all of their pupils. It's just like the whole trip analogy in the original post, the school makes a reasonable adjustment to shorten the duration of the event which therefore accommodates the needs of the all the children. The ones "with issues" are able to go, they are not excluded and the wider class still gets their trip away. Same as adjustments to the show or performance times or some other feature to allows all kids to participate with no one being left out and the performance still gets to go ahead. Is there really some big issue here?

It's took you over a month to come back with that. I can't even understand what you are trying to ask. Its just gibberish.

Maybe so. But it doesn't alter the fact that you went for the cheap online option and now seem to be whining about the fact that you can't easily contact a human being and instead have to be forced to use their online services to communicate with them. That's their business model. If you wanted the personal service, you could have gone to a traditional company. Like I said earlier, can't have it both ways.

But YOU have chosen to use an online only business. Their entire operation is designed from the ground up to be dealt with online. It wants as little human intervention as possible. It's exactly the reason why they expect you to use their chatbots and FAQs and web pages and do all they can to stop you contacting them directly. Direct contact means having to pay for humans to deal with it. Something not in it's business model. Does it say anywhere that they will guarantee a response within 2 days? Did you have to send a message again? It might simply be the case that your original message is sitting in box somewhere waiting processing by the tiny amount of humans they employ to do such work. If you wanted the simplicity and assurance of full human interaction and instant Rolls-Royce service, you could have gone to a traditional travel agent and more than likely paid double or triple the price. Thems your choices. Can't have it both ways.

Are you deliberately forgetting things like free prescriptions, free eye tests, free bus passes, winter fuel allowances, cold weather payments, potential eligibility for housing benefit, potential eligibility for council tax discount, various discounts from private businesses, tax credits for looking after grandchildren, discounted train travel..... Also, the government doesn't expect people to simply "live on that". They are smart enough to understand that a big majority of pensioners own assets, including their own home, savings, investment, trusts and other sorts of funds which any sensible person will invest and plan to prepare for their old age. Stats show that at the end of 2020, 80% of people 65 and over were owning their own home. Out of that, around 75% were mortgage free. The taxpayers alliance calculates an average employee pays around £70k NI contributions over a working lifetime. At your so-called pitiful £700 a month rate that will mean one person taking their state pension at 66 and living to the average life expectancy of 80 would receive £117,000. That's about 67% more out of the pot than their contributor into it. It's damn right state pension should be means tested. Something's got to give. Come back to the real world. The state doesn't fund a lifestyle and, irrelevant of the woe is me 'poverty' tales - there are lots of people taking out far more than they ever pay in to the system.

They are like catnip to you these things aren't they. Absolute non-story. The only 'outrage' and 'backlash' come from morons not even involved in it, not even at the university and over reactors the paper whips up into a froth. Absolutely pathetic. There's not a single piece of evidence that said it was banned because it was offensive. One student interview by the sun "thinks" "probably" "might have" They didn't know. They weren't there. They didn't make the decision. They just took of uncorrobarted assumptions but hey that's tabloid journalism. What is accurate is that a healthy number of students didn't want a national anthem to be part of their graduation ceremony because they deemed the old fashioned and irrelevant and that's entirely their choice. Personally, I don't really see the connection between a graduation ceremony and the national anthem anyway. It's not a royal event, It's not an event of national importance. It's not a military parade. It's not a national tournament being played out in a global stage between nations. Move along people. Nothing to see here again.

Well that's a well thought out and detailed counter argument. You keep doing you. Everything the evil tories fault and all that.....

Yes and none of that ever existed when Labour were in charge. 🙄 Social services has not "been decimated". It's as flabby and mismanaged and a bottomless money pit as it ever was - just like the NHS. There's been more money thrown at it over the years than ever before but still it pleads poverty. How about looking at some of the other factors like mismanagement, over spending, wastage, taking it for granted, abuse by its users, not simply just blame the government. People have never been able to get doctor's appointments in a timely fashion. In fact, it's become such a running joke, it's almost a fabric of our society. Lets not forget the private business GP partnerships decide their opening hours and how they allocate appointments. Remember all the screams of horror from practitioners when they dared to suggest they consider opening late hours or weekends to fit around ordinary people's lives. GP issues is not a new concept that only existed since the tories took back over. Oh and as for this crap about heating v eating. Do me a favour.... I'm old enough to remember a time when benefits really was the bare minimum. There were no in work tax credits or food banks or school meal schemes for all kids or breakfast clubs or pound shops or (IMO unjustified) selective discount schemes for certain types of public sector employees. Families coped. My family did just that. They might be argued as middle class now, but they certainly weren't back in the day. I got raised with my parents living literally from paycheck to paycheck. Scraping around to get enough money to put food on the table and pay off whatever rental or tallyman had got to the red final demand stage that week. They still managed to keep going , keeping us warm and clothed and fed. Might have been basic. Might have been nothing more than simple home cooking that was probably recycled two or three times across different meals - but that's how life was. They couldn't go running to the benefits office or demanding food vouchers or expecting the school to feed their offspring three times a day. I really don't believe it's too many people genuinely in dire straits when even the cheapest of the cheapest shops have got people coming out with bags and trolleys bulging at the seams with an abundance of cheap foreign made, slave wage pay, consumer goods with enough food and supplies that some genuinely poverty nations could survive a month on. In 2023 PIP rates for example increased by 10.1%. Next year state benefits are set to go up by another 6.7% with state pension going up by 8.5%. National minimum wage for the majority is currently over £10.40 an hour with next year increasing to £11.44 an hour. To put that in some real world context, a full time minimum wage low skilled worker would receive an equivalent of an annual salary of over £22k or about £1,600 a month after tax. That's going to be the absolute minimum wage for anyone over 21 and people dare plead poverty??? I don't know how they can keep a straight face. Neither am I buying into your doommongering about how everything is "broken". You raise it as if it's so widely accepted it's beyond debate but I honestly do not know what you are seeing. In this country right now... the street lights are still on, the water is still flowing, the hospitals are still running, the infrastructure still running (give or take the strike interruptions from self-important unions and their greedy unrealistic members), people driving their cars around, the majority of us are not constantly getting burgled or stabbed or attacked every time we leave the house, we are not living in constant fear of being blown up or shelled or invaded by our neighbouring nations, will still are able to travel for tourism and business, our financial and technology sectors are still key players on the global stage, we are still relevant and prominent in global politics, the shops are still stocked up, we are still reaping the rewards of foreign labour and cheap imports, employment is still healthy, people are still going out socialising and doing leisure activities......What exactly is this picture of doom? What exactly so broken in your opinion and is it any "worse" than the peaks and troughs faced throughout society, throughout the world and throughout every generation. Some people really need to give their head a wobble. Drag themselves back into reality. There is too much over simplistic politicising from certain types of people and far far too much of this black and white mentality that everything is X's fault and it will be all so perfect if only Y gets a chance to take over. It's nonsense.

Christ sake will you stop bringing up your kid swimming and your pathetic obsession about freedom to go filming children in swim gear as it is not relevant to this thread. What is wrong with you? As for your York example, hardly seems outrageous if they did put fencing up. Its a city well known for a big student population, lots of tourism and lots of day trippers for the races. Very often all three elements involving heavy drinking of alcohol. Proximity of several key pubs in town are on the Riverside. So is it really so outrageous to think about the risk. Of course that's not absolving all responsibility off the drunkard who falls in but irrelevant of that no authority wants to be fishing bodies out the river on a continual basis dual do they. Prevention is better than the cure they say and despite what your over exaggerating, illogical and clearly triggered brain is trying to tell you - it is not in reality some newfangled modern concept. There had always been safety precautions and barriers and guards and restrictions and regulations and insurance policies. Most industrial workers know not to handle a red hot molten piece of steel or stare directly the furnace but there still give them protective clothing don't they? Most miners knew full well about the limited height and low hanging beams but they're still given a helmet arnt they? Most high access workers know no to let go of the ladder or walk off the scaffold but they're still clip them on don't they? Most people can walk down a flight of stairs without toppling over the side, but they still install bannisters don't they? Most people can drive a car without smashing it into a wall, but they're still install seat belts don't they? I guess in your ideal world they wouldn't bother. After all, their own fault if they get hurt isn't it.

What you on about? The Station has its own dedicated stop and Bridge Link directly to the platforms. That was updated and moved around when the station change their own access points replacing the older bridge down to the station forecourt. Think it might have been the second phase to open but it was the same year as the first one. It was was part of the original 1994 route to Spring lane Fitzalan Square is just a couple of minutes walk from the main bus interchange and the tram route is even closer to the numerous bus stops on High Street or West Street or Haymarket which generally are the exact same bus routes that will also trundle around towards The Moor, Eyre Street or Arundel Gate. Whilst I agree better hospital access will be great in an ideal world. It's not that simple. The geography of where the hospitals are located makes it very tricky. Look at the tight cluster and already chaotic roads around Brook Hill and Glossop Road and the cluster of hospitals between the Childrens, Charles Clifford, Western Park, Royal Hallamshire, that's before we get onto all the prominent university buildings which were all there long before the supertram. Just where exactly is it supposed to go? Plus could you imagine the crying on here about the traffic being created. People not be able to get to hospital..... people being trapped 'for hours' because of the road works and temporary lights. There was more than enough crying about it back in the 90s when they were trying to install in the much more spacious, less chaotic areas along Hillsborough, towards Meadowhall through wastelands in Attercliffe, and out into the wide purpose roads towards the townships. Now the Northern General might be more feasible if they could find a way of getting it from Hillsborough and up over Herries without too much mayhem, but then again it will probably only get to one part of the hospital campus which might not be too convenient for those who are wanting particular parts of they already vast site.

What has any of that crap got to do with a child dying on a negligently run building site. You are obsessed man and quite frankly no I don't care. I don't care that you get soooo wound up and overreact soooo extremely about rules brought in by people who know better and have the brain power to think about the wider picture.

I have told you the reason why I can't answer the question. You are asking me to determine what a dead child did or didn't know. How exactly can I answer that? As for your rant about duty of care vs. reasonable care - If you read my response properly you will see I was talking about what is a reasonable action for the contractor to have done. They failed and as a result of that failure a child died. That is why they got prosecuted and that is why they suffered a massive fine. Even the law itself has very clear words. Look at the extract again. "....As far as reasonably practical....". There are defences about maintaining a balance between operational reality and maintaining safety. They are parts of say, the manual handling regulations that say such risks should be avoided as far as possible. That's not to say it can't ever be done, just should be reduced to the bare minimum. So you can quit with this seemingly self created myth that all and everything's got to be 100% fail safe and the bogeymen authorities won't stop till they're done. Just what exactly on my list was deemed 'unreasonable' for a business to undertake. Putting up a secure fence? Regular checks to make sure there were no gaping holes in it? As for the rest of your post, Im not going to indulge you in your flashbacks to totally unrelated threads nor let you regurgitate your whines about not being able to freely engage in filming of children swimming and 1001 other overreactions to aspects of modern life - which somehow the rest of us happily get on with without drama.

Oh well, if Richard Hawley sings about it, that's completely changed my opinion 🙄. Bit rich to be making a song when someone was born 4 years after the thing had closed and moved to Barkers Pool anyway. Perhaps it will have been better for him to be warbling on about the building being split into different units, partly occupied by a building society and a cafe and the gas board at the time - will have been more accurate. Given the album named "Coles Corner" was brought out in 2005, 3 years after the store itself stopped calling itself that, and the album cover shot didn't even feature the bloody location (being a shot of the SJ theatre in Scarborough) all seems like a bit of desperate nostalgia cash grab to me.

Think you need to read about separation of powers and understand exactly what a courts power is.

We are not. EHRC is already incorporated into British domestic law has been for more than two decades. It is our own judges.

'chabbies'??? For everyone under retirement age, they would have only ever known Cole Brothers in it's Barker's Pool location. That got renamed over 21 years ago and its been shut for nearly three. God sake, I understand people having happy memories, but this city really does like to go wallowing in it's nostalgia and pining for the return of days gone by. It's a shop, a long defunct location of a shop what some people just happened to use as a meeting place over half a century ago. The building has been took over and repurposed multiple times in that 60 years and doesn't look anything like It's original design. It's hardly a location of great historical or national importance. It's hardly a major part of the industrial heritage or uniqueness of the city. It's not blue plaque worthy. We are now four entire generations on since Cole Brothers moved from its original to Barkers Pool and subsequently closed. Is it really so hard for some people to accept the city evolves, times move on, and prominence, interest and relevance in things evolve with it.

How the hell would I know the thoughts of a now dead 10 year old child. It's totally irrelevant anyway as the burden is on the contracting company to comply with the set rules, regulations and laws to make their site safe, even more so when said site is in close proximity to a playground. How about Corporate Responsibility?? Compliance of which was all negligently breached by the contracting company resulting in their prosecution and significant fine. If the kid had knowingly planned, gone tooled up, with intent, broken in through secured gates, destroyed the warning signs and recklessly dived into a hole you may have argument on contributory negligence. But given this is a young pre-teen child at play, presented with a tempting invitation by a gaping hole in a fence next to a playground and a nicely conveniently placed ladder it's a different planet. Sec 3.1 of the HSWA.... It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way to ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.... It was reasonably practical for the site to conduct sufficient risk assessment, including the obvious element of potential enticing of children. It was reasonably practical for the site to maintain sufficient records. It was reasonably practical for the site to ensure sufficient maintenance of their fencing. It was reasonably practical for the site to comply with their duties of inspection and spot a great hole in their fence. It was reasonably practical for the site to have sufficient patrol and securing. It couldn't be more clear where the blame lies in this one. Heres a bit of free advice, I hope your shop premises are keeping on top of the statutory obligations of health and safety - because if a HSE prosecution is found, it can be business wrecking level of fines.

To be honest, if the company hadn't severely failed in their basic duties to protect the site it would put him off. Seemingly, they didn't maintain the fencing, failed to comply with inspection regimes and regularly check the fencing structure, failed to keep mandatory records, and keep the place secured, hence why they were found guilty and fined a six figure sum. Based on the article I read, there was even more crucial element because the site location was in close proximity to a kids playground, a factor that a competent risk assessor should have noted being an obvious increase in invitation for kids to come exploring and thus more incentive for a operator of the site to make damn sure they keep it secured and safe. However, I can say from experience (just to appease Chekhov and Co), that generally compensation for dead people is nowhere near the award levels of severely injured but alive people, so I'm sure that's some consolation to them in their constant grumbles about this mad litigious modern world.

Given some of the ridiculous comments made on here I can't think of any time in which your personality will suit. You seem to be the kind of rebellious, arrogant, know it all person in the wartime who would be refusing to put up blackout curtains and stoically rejecting going down into a shelter because it was too inconvenient for you...... The sort of person whinging and complaining about all the fuss over Asbestos and Mesothelioma just because you used to play with it and were fine..... The sort of person thinking HIV was just a 'gay disease'.... Oh and let's not go down the deluded nostalgic wallow that the 1970s were sooo better than now. There were still plenty of rules and regulations to get up your nose. The Health and Safety at Work act itself came in 1974. Yes, there might not have been the glut of TV lawyers as we have today, but don't you think there wasn't plenty of claims being brought. Insurance claims teams in the big corporations employed thousands. Plenty of trade unions and community organisations were sticking their oar in, bringing compensation requests for their members because someone's tripped over a spanner left on site or Doris from the typing pool got a paper cut or the vending machine ran out of milk powder or the showers only had lukewarm water.... As someone whose worked in legacy claims I've seen plenty of occasions of management being hassled because those supposed 'burly' 'real men' Workers were crying about the showers being grubby or demanding allowances for their washing overalls or canteen or softer toilet paper or more comfy work boots because god forbid the threat of strikes or group compensation actions. As for overbearing 'health and safety bollix' Do we not remember the golden age of the public information films. Little horror stories constantly played out. The Finishing Line, Apaches, play safe, films about escalators and chip pan infernos, the toppling pushchair due to bags being hung off it and of course Charlie Says ... The screaming kid getting a leg run over by train or the boy trying to get his football blowing himself up on a substation... Certainly not a new modern world concept. You are kidding yourself.

The main City post office is now Charles Street. Some of the Amazon lockers of also moved to Charles Street along with locations at the Premier Inn on Angel Street, Moor Market, Spar shop outside the station and Velocity on Solly Street according to Google maps.

You will have no problem citing the sources of your 'facts' then......

I don't think it's just a royal thing. For one thing, it's well published that the royals don't expect anything. The traditions of how to greet a royal are things built in our society, not something they sit there demanding every time they enter a room. Deep down, I don't think King Charles will give a flying fig whether someone bows courtesy, waves or high fives. It's the wider population who find outrage and criticism against people who don't do something. Besides people show that sort of behaviour all the time across different parts of our culture. Children for example from a very early age, as soon as they start going to school, understand deference to their teachers with 'sir' and 'miss' and following orders, lining up, putting their hands up for permission to speak, waiting to be acknowledged in turn.... Obviously in the military there is an entire manual on protocols and procedures, terms of address and rankings. It even trickles down to the police forces where the uniform division still have set ways in terms of address, greeting and protocol. Lawyers are still bowing when they enter a courtroom. It's not simply about "the person" but far more respect and acknowledgement of the institution. Even more, contemporary cultures is just as ripe for a new wave of such behaviour, look at the way that people fawn and give deference, fall in line and bow down whenever there is a famous thespian, influencer, celebrity rolling into town. The sort of diva, entitled, self importance behaviour and demands shown by that mob IMO far outweighs royalty whose lives are almost simple and humble in comparison to the cult of stardom.

I don't really understand what this tit for tat debate about employees is supposed to be. People are making it out as if somehow workers and owners are on equal level. They are not. Never have been. It's not the employees who were investing their personal monies into the business, it's not the employees whose potential liabilities could have been at stake. It's not the employees who bought that business, invested, brought it up from a small enterprise to a national corporation. Employees are contractually obligated to serve the business in a specific job role and in return are renumerated by salaries and benefits under the control, and contractual terms that they agree to set by the business. That's the relationship. Full stop. At the end of the day, don't you think those employees wouldn't or didn't jump ship as soon as something brighter, better and more well paid came along. Do you think they sat there going... "Ooh no I need to say and be loyal to Wilkos". Do you think when it all hit the fan those employees went running to the management volunteering to chuck in some of their own monies to keep the store running or pay off some supply debt. Do you think even most of those employees regularly shopped in Wilkos outside of their work shifts or perhaps they might have sneakily popped along to their competition with better prices and products. Of course it's important to treat employees fairly and kindly. But lets not be under any sort of delusion that there is equal relationship status. When the markets are good, employees have the power, they can reap the rewards of an abundance of roles, demanding better and progressing to sell their best assets. When the markets are bad power shifts back to the business and employees have to make do and trudge through it. The harsh fact is they become just like any other commodity and by their very nature are dispensable. Its simply business.

He's a normal working person. He has had a real world experience. Civil service and Governance is a profession. No matter how much its despised. Why do you think an engineer, doctor, banker or pet shop owner would be far better qualified to do such role over the incumbent?

Since when was there there a connection between people living in flats and whether they are civilised. More talking out of your posterior. Just because someone has a two bedroomed semi with a nice garden and driveway does not automatically mean they are civilised. Plenty of low life, serial workshy and druggies live in houses love. On the other hand plenty of well educated, polite, classy professionals are happily living in flats. Jeez it really must be something living on Planet Irene where everyone instantly wants, can, afford and has sufficient room to all be living in their 3 bed mock Tudor homes with a white slimline telephone, bidet, waste disposal and room for a pony. However the rest of us live in the real world.