ECCOnoob

No, it's not "guess work" Anna. It's factual information of the potential options available to carers based on a range of official sources including the local Carer service, authority, the Citizens Advice website and the government's own website. Yes of course there are caps and limits and restrictions based on what people's other income sources are, but let's not pretend additional top-ups don't exist. Now forgive me for taking those sources over one of your many cherry picked anecdotes or speculative opinion. The information is all out there for those who can be bothered to do a three second Google search. It's even stated clearly on Carers UK's own website and the government's own website.

Just because AnnaB says its the worst doesn't automatically make it true either. I note you are conveniently ignoring the fact that someone receiving that £70 carers allowance gets national insurance credits and may also be eligible to apply for additional monies from the council and/or reduced council tax liability and/or universal credit and/or pension credit and/or support grants and/or income support and/or employment and support allowance.... Plenty of people claiming careers allowance still have part-time jobs. Other people may continue to receive lower rate pension and can still claim careers allowance on top. Easy to pick and choose the dramatic headlines. Not quite the same when one actually bothers to looks at the full context.

Is that the one who was the jolly hostess on the national express?

When the law puts personal liability and risk of substantial fines directly upon shop workers with regards restricted goods without conducting proper checks. Nobody has an automatic right to compel a business to sell them goods. If the shop worker considered the person, despite their actual age, did not have sufficient mental capacity or maturity for the goods in question, then they were right to debar the sale. The very fact that the protagonist in this story has a care worker rings alarm bells straightaway. If said care worker was so concerned why didn't they buy the goods on behalf of the service user themselves. I feel there is far more to this story than is being said.

I'm glad the police have finally been given some additional powers, albeit we are yet to see exactly what they're going to do with them against these morons. JSO disrupting Wimbledon was almost inevitable given several thespians and luvvies have been publicly whinging about Barclays sponsoring the event. Shock horror, a major international banking corporation just happens to include some investments and financing of fossil fuel companies in their billions of pounds of assets 🙄 Strange that not so long ago, some of their fellow thespians were more than happy to take lots of wonga from Barclays to do cheesy TV and Cinema adverts for them.... I wonder if Emma Thompson and Co will be as gobby next time they bump into to Sir Tony or Samuel at some showbiz party.

I don't avoid it through any particular, scare story, I more avoid it because I simply don't like the taste of sugar-free alternatives compared to regular sugar. As for MSM being late to the game, I personally don't think they are. I have seen plenty of reports and stories and articles over the years banging on about potential risks. But it's hardly new. Our own government first bringing in regulations to put labels on sugar alternative products as far back as 1997. Since then, there's been a range of retailers and manufacturers bringing various rules and regulations. As for what could or couldn't give you cancer, the list is endless. The daily mail particularly loves the good "....could give you cancer..." dramatic headline and if we took all them at face value we'd never eat or drink anything. I'd rather leave it to the authorities to decide through clinical analysis and peer review whether something should actually be banned or reduced. The reason for the sudden increase in news about this is because, like all good scientific organisations, WHO have been constantly revising and reconsidering and re-testing some of their analysis. However, the dumbed down media have done their usual trick of picking out the juicy bits out of context and turning him into a major speculative filled inconclusive story about what might be in the report with lots of dramatic statements about who might be at risk It's what's newspapers do. Sensationalise.... cherry pick.... exaggerate all to keep on selling more advertising, get more clickbait and more traction to their multiple websites.

Well that's their choice, but in which case, they have no right to be bitching and whining about being inconvenced or excluded when the rest of the world moves on and embraces the ongoing evolution of technology. If you want to be the great principled disrupter putting up a fight against all this, go ahead. You take that stand. But then don't be expecting everyone else to dumb themselves down and still provide you entirely obsolete facilities just because you choose to remain being a dinosaur. The origins of computing supporting major institutions and infrastructure has been present in some form for most people's entire lives now. Domestically, the world of the silicone chip, digital information and electronic transaction processing have been part of people's lives for at least the past 40 years. It ain't going away.

That will be the one that is at Hathersage. Again, referring to it 'doing well' is open to interpretation. The topic of this thread is about any viable business venture and a quick look at hathersage pool shows that it's origins was as a gift from a local philanthropic businessman, the pool fell into significant debt in the post war years, had to rely upon significant volunteers in order to keep going and making improvements, had to rely upon bailouts from the local parish council and still to this day gets a significant amount of its running costs paid for by fundraising efforts from the local community and payments from the parish council. So I pose this question, if people want to bring back a 'heavily demanded' and 'well loved' outdoor swim facility in the city, are they prepared to pay increased council tax or perhaps to pay for themselves through fundraising efforts?....... If the answer is no, then neither would a viable private business.

Why though? It just doesn't seem to suit our climate and weather and seems it awful lot of expenditure for something barely used each year. Surely, for those interested in swimming outdoors the joy would be the uniqueness and exhilaration of swimming in the sea, freshwater lakes or rivers or reservoirs - thus people have those options. The joy of swimming in a purpose built pool is the protection from the elements, control of the temperature and accessibility in all weather conditions.

I am not fully convinced. We are barely 70 miles from a seaside resort which can be reached in less than 90 minutes. There are at least a dozen others all within around 2 to 2 1/2 hours drive away. Those wanting seaside experience can easily get the real thing quite easily. As is proven by the thousands who flock to the coast every weekend. There are plenty others who have caravans or camping or holiday lets that they go so regular it just becomes almost part of their routine week. So I don't think location and distance from the sea is a big inconvenience. As for outdoor swimming, I again think it's little bit more variable. Whilst its true that there is a rise in popularity of outdoor swimming, from what I read, this appears to be more 'wild' type swimming in rivers and lakes rather than simply an outdoor pool. I am sure it would be lovely on a bright summer day. But what about a cooler dull cloudy day like today where the vast majority of people are at work and the kids are back in school. Who funds it then? Where's it's footfall coming from? Whose paying for the massive bills of maintaining it and heating it? Making sure it's all compliant and safe? Its all well and good having these attractions out on a temporary basis which draw some crowd in with some novelty but its a different story to keep something a viable business long term in a permanent position. We are not Dubai or Las Vegas. We don't achieve great tourism and theme park style attractions. Such a spectacular project is impressive, but it would require vast amounts of money which I'm just not convinced would solidly be there particularly after the initial novelty wears. Let's also not forget the glaring difference between climate in Brisbane and Sheffield. That's before we think about the costs of such things and ticket price. For most, that traditional seaside experience is generally a modest price point. Those amusement arcades and ice creams at Cleethorpes and Scarborough and Skegness suit a certain price pocket. A fancy fake seaside attraction in the middle of a big city with big city rents and big city prices might not be so attractive, especially when playing arcades are suddenly £5 ago or a swim in that fake sea is £25 per person. If you want a slight taster at what im getting at, take a look at the cost of playing, say, a game of pool or ten pin bowling in old fashioned seaside amusement arcade versus the cost of playing the same types of game in one of these very trendy but novelty activity bars that's opened up in the city. There is only is certain size of pool of customers willing to shell out like that consistently week in week out.

I was thinking something similar. All seems too far fetched and far more likely to be exaggerated discussion as part of the wider lesson. But the Daily Mail and LBC have once again done the job. Selectively edited, over simplified to set off the triggers and stir up the frothy mouthed debate.

I think it needs to be clarified that private land or not is irrelevant. Places still need permission to do things on that land. If one owned a large field or piece of concrete wasteland, they couldn't just whack up two buildings without permission. There are entirely private bits of land which require permission and approval just to put up certain type of sign or illuminated board or even change the layout of their own doorway. The land at meadowhall is currently designated car parking space. I seriously doubt that meadowhall is going to be able to plonk some major leisure attraction and open it to the public without some form of permission. In fact, from reading the article, it seems that planning permission was already granted for the attraction sometime back last year in September. The uncertainty remains as to whether or not meadowhall are going to go ahead with whatever activities its proposed.

Jesus Christ. 117 pages and well over a year later and here he is starting the same thread over again with the same winge which has been long debated and rebutted. Get over it Chekhov. You can't film and take photos of other people's kids without permission. Your obsession over this topic is disturbing.

Yep, we have that too. I think it was called something like the LAVS scheme which included places like M&S, Atkinsons and several larger pubs displaying that their toilets were open to public use without purchase. Fact is most people wandering around don't care and easily find a facility if they need it. Unless it's some tiny little cafe or secured building, most of the staff will barely notice nor care if someone 'nipped in' to use a loo.

Seems strange, whenever I had to go it's been an open public building you could just walk in before you join the queue for reception or various other counters. Besides, if you were THAT desperate I'm sure you could ask nicely to get to the loo. If someone has a disability, there are even special mandatory provisions where there are allowed access to toilets including in the town hall itself.

You don't have to. You can use a public funded facility in the Millennium Galleries or Moor Market or Howden House or Central Library or the two bus interchanges or the rail station. Add on the fact that if one is in town for a legitimate purpose, most normal people have the sense to use a facility while they are in a cafe or restaurant or bar or office building or department store or theatre or cinema.... As others said, this argument has been done to death. As for your nonsense about cash machines, putting aside the fact that cash is becoming increasingly obsolete, since when was ever the council's responsibility to install cash points?? There is plenty allocation out there provided by the banks. There are bank branches all over Fargate and High Street. There are cash points attached to every single Tesco and Sainsbury's of which there are multiple around town. There are cash points in every single convenience store scattered all around town. There are cash points in the bus station, cash points in the train station, cash points in every gambling arcade...... Once again you really are looking for problems that aren't there.

Right, so the estate I live on which is at least two miles away from any sort of major retailer is a "no-go area" in your opinion, people walking around the streets around my house don't feel safe at all in the evening? You really do exaggerate.

Yes I have been there recently at least a couple of times a week. I am well aware there is some dodgy activity going off but one could say exactly the same about cities up and down the land. I doubt your friend was that shocked and apalled considering what I see going off around places like places like Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester or on the bottom of Briggate in Leeds around the top of New Street in Birmingham for example. Doesn't mean those areas get written off as "no go" when thousands of people still walk through them, work in them or even sometimes live around them. The harsh reality is it's part and parcel of being in a city. Nobody wants it there is- but at the same time, unless we are going to completely lock down and oversanitise the streets to convert them into some privately operated and overprotected facility ala Dubai or Singapore or Las Vegas, the general public will still have free access to them with the general public doing what they want to do be good or bad. Fact of life. Let's face it, back in the 'glory days' there were just as many dodgy characters and people you'd take a wide birth around in the Hole in the Road or cluttering up the bus stations or drinking out of their brown paper bags in peace gardens.....

Or in the alternative, one could think positive and consider that the empty retail units could be converted into the more residential or student accommodation or mixed use which could bring increased footfall to the bars and food court. The old Argos is already changing into a bowling centre, parts around High Street and Fitzallan sq are already transforming into university buildings or student attractive businesses or residential. As I have said earlier on the thread, the castle house co-op was an outdated relic which I'm surprised has lasted as long as it did. The department store that surrounded it has long been closed. It's store format was old school and not what most of its target shoppers want and need in its location. Since it's original heyday, several rival supermarkets have opened up around it. One of which is another co-op but in a much more modern, accessible and convenience format in line with its nationwide business model. Castlegate is far from being 'a no-go area'. It is just changing. As I have said dozens of times it is not just shops. The city has a far wider purpose than that. Take a look at what is happening all around Castlegate onto Bank Street, Campo Lane, Love Street, West Bar down to the start of Neepsend Look what's springing up or the sorts of building conversions being done with millions of pounds of investment. All residential and student accommodation bringing people back into living close to the city as is happening all over the world. That is the new purpose for the area. That is the direction it's going - has been now for several years.

Yeah, and look how well that deterrent is working in reducing murders and other serious crimes in the States.

Oh dear, all that tantrum because you're being challenged on a debating forum. I'll call your post delusional because it was. You were the one making up your anti-thatcher rant nonsensical statistics. You were the one trying to portray that before Thatcher's reign there were no untuly teenagers or not a single dodgy street at night or no antisocial behaviour or no lazy feckless unemployed...which is a complete load of bull. I am not saying it was all bad, but at the same time I am not going to let you get away with painting some picture of utopia as if it was all wonderful. It wasn't. I lived through part of it so I'm not completely clueless and have an entire family who are born and raised in it so I'm more than aware what the reality was. For some, the 50s 60s and '70s was bloody hard. Not everything was that affordable and there are plenty of ups and downs in the economy then. It was especially hard for women who were struggling to get away from the kitchen sink and god forbid if they dared to want to advance their careers facing armies of men trampling them down, blocking, jeopardising and generally creating a nuisance to put them back in their place. There wasn't even an equal pay until the later 70s. That's all before, we get into the boisterous climate within our public bodies with some horrendous working conditions before the introducing of improved working regulations, tighter controls, new safety acts.... Certainly wasn't so pleasant for anyone of a minority, homosexual or disability who regularly faced attacks and prejudice discrimination until the new laws thankfullying enlightened society a bit more. Others were simply thrown to the mercy of public institutions, locked away and left to rot in so called 'special schools' or 'care centres'. Thankfully things have moved on a bit since then. Yes of course, some of those issues still exists today. Maybe worse. Maybe better but lets not pretend it didn't exist back then either. Now, do you want to try debating like an adult or are you just going to plough on behaving like a petulant child.

My God, you've really gone down the nostalgia delusion today. Were there really such a good time for all? Plenty of reports and diaries and journalism and film about the harsh realities of living in those so-called wonderful 60s and 70s. Seeing the 'poverty' just as rampant then as it is now. There were still plenty of low life and chavs and hooligans around back then. They were just called different things. There was plenty of misogyny and sexism and racism and homophobia and abuse. Plenty of corrupt institutions, crooked MPs and sheer negligent public authorities causing all sorts of scandals, menu which have only become apparent decades later. There were still periods of rampant inflation and people struggling to pay or get food on the table which has been well documented even to the point where it become part of sitcom plots from the back then.... We can all look on our pasts with warm fuzzy fondness and happy memories. The human brain tends to block out the nasty stuff. But don't ever pretend it wasn't there and it was some wonderful utopia. It's nonsense.

No. Very few of them will meet the threshold for legal aid which certainly does not apply to general welfare benefits advice and is usually only applicable to cases going through the higher appeals tribunal. Many firms dealing with such cases do so by 'no win no fee agreements' or they are simply submitted by the claimant directly as a litigant in person. In fact, for your information, Irwin Mitchell isn't even registered on the Legal Aid Agency panel to offer legal aid for welfare benefits. There's only two organisations in Sheffield that do that, and one of them is a citizens advice bureau. As for the rest of the country there are only 37 registered organisations authorised to give legal aid to welfare benefits - so it really isn't this commonplace wide ranging scenario as you make out. I do know that because I am a lawyer so have a bit more insight.

Strange, you never seem to give a toss about that when cases are being pursued by those so-called poverty stricken benefits claimants against the evil DWP. Or cases about those poor downtrodden public sector workers with their unions continually challenging the government over pay or terms or changes to contract. Or all those do-gooder organisations continually seeking to thwart and delay government policy with their endless judicial reviews or challenges against parliament or screaming and demanding yet another multi million pound public inquiry over something..... Very selective Anna. Perhaps you think the state should just roll over and cash out every claim and challenge it gets. It's entitled to put up a fight just as much as anything else.

You do realise that most of the biggest firms in the prestigious offices have sod all to do with personal injury compensation claims. If they do, they are usually acting on the defendant side so their job is too dismiss and discredit such claims. To my knowledge two of the biggest firms in our city do some work acting for government departments and therefore part of their job is trying to dismiss actions and save money for the public purse. If you want to find those leaching TV ambulance chasers, as you call them, nowadays they are very often small practices getting into bed with claim management companies based in out off town office parks or some ramshackle High Street shop unit. As for those footballers wives and film stars, do not think that famous people are entitled to the same justice and access to defend their position like anybody else. If Joe Bloggs is having some dispute and goes into his local solicitors to pay them to write a cease and desist letter - how is that any different to major celebrity or high profile company in dispute with say, a publisher, paying a large corporate law firm to do just the same thing only bigger scale? Whichever lawyers are involved the principles are still the same. Everyone always seems to hate lawyers except that inevitable day when they suddenly need one themselves