ECCOnoob

Have we really got so prissy these days. Yes, the image is not for me, but I've certainly seen a lot worse magazine shots. Honestly, it's as if the rock and roll revolution and outrageous behaviour never happened. Music stars have always been using controversial gimmicks and deliberately provocative imaging. In the 1950s, Elvis thrusting his pelvis caused shrieks amongst the crowd and a media frenzy In the 60s and 70s, at the height of it all, we had rock stars frequently getting naked on stage, doing the helicopter, throwing themselves into the crowd to be fondled by the masses, performing rude and crude acts as part of their performance. We had them smashing up hotel rooms, riding motorbikes through corridors, taking part in drug fuelled orgies with queues of teenage girls just waiting to get into their trailers and hotel rooms. Even later on, Queen performed videos in fishnets and fake boobs and mini skirts, Ozzy bit the head off a bat, George Michael did an entire scene emulating cottaging, Madonna has spent decades wearing wholly inappropriate outfits and getting her bits out every 5 seconds. Even the sweeter, more innocent world of manufactured pop music has gone down the same path sometimes. The spice girls were not ashamed to be doing poses all over the lads mags, the boy bands would default to their cheeky shirtless swimming pool photo shoots or nearly nude poses smothered in baby oil, Little Miss Disney, Miley Cyrus did her whole wrecking ball thing, Britney Spears for god sake dressed up as a school child while singing about being hit one more time... Sam Smith knows exactly what they are doing. There's a track to sell and what better way to get people talking and get massive publicity with minimal effort.

I am not. I'm just stating obvious facts. Something you can't seem to comprehend. I don't believe for one second that you are so dense you cannot see what is happening across the globe in retail. 40 years ago, every city, every tin pot market town had a selection of department stores all the hub of activity for their respective locations. They had a continual footfall and loyal following because consumers had no where else to go that offered such choice and variety. Then came along the self-service supermarkets which expanded into giant hypermarkets selling everything from a pint of milk to a television all in one place with massive convenient parking. That coincided with the development of out of town shopping malls with similar advantages and by the 1990s when online shopping first hit the scene, the slow lingering death of many of those very expensive, empty, decreasing customers, prime lumps of real estate in the middle of our town centres was well and truly underway. How is this so hard to comprehend. Cities or no longer judged by stores they have. With exception of a small handful of one offs, the vast majority of high streets whether they are in Toronto, Truro or Tokyo are dominated by identical brands and mass conglomerates. People's interests have moved away from just shopping which is now far often about convenience unless, as I've pointed out on several occasions, a particular store is something special, exclusive, or unique The world has moved on from the 70s. About time you drag yourself into modern society.

You are quite right. WELL RUN businesses have accounts for those sorts of things. They get daily or weekly deliveries from a Dairy or they incorporate it into their online supplies orders or they simply include it within their weekly grocery shop and take it to their workplace. Its really not difficult. Bloody hell, when I started out as a lowly office boy nearly 25 years ago we were paying without cash to the milkman and little paper shop who supplied the client waiting lounge. As for your whinging about bank statements..... you seem to make out that it's such a tedious burden on you as a business owner to check your incoming/outgoing. It's part of the job. If you don't like it either hire someone to do it for you or stop being a business owner.. A WELL RUN business will already be checking everything in and out as a matter of routine anyway. So I don't know why your grumbling about low value transactions. It's all part of the audit process whether it's a thousand or a penny. It all has to be checked just as equally whether it's cash or electronic. How can reading a bank statement and checking off lower value transactions be any more or less time consuming then having to count out, bag up and bank cash.

That makes no sense. It's exactly the same transaction process and exactly the same 'effort' whether it's £1000, £100 or a penny. Why do you need petty cash for purchases? If you are buying ad hoc items from another shop, just use your card like you would do with any other transaction. All the business bank accounts offer some form of debit or credit card with them. Same with the milk, companies offer accounts which can be paid by BACS or direct debit transfer every week or month. You clearly seem happy buying stuff over £20 with a card. I really don't see why you have a problem doing exactly the same for stuff under £10. Everybody else has more than embraced it and the only person setting some mythical arbitrary minimum limit is you. Just like whole printing tickets and threats of boycotting companies arguments raised on the thread - all seems to smack of, the only person choosing to be inconvenienced is themselves.

2 seconds Google of the words "mobility assistance rail station" brings up the results of the network rail page which explains in the services offered, lists the various train companies own procedures for assisted travel and there is even a YouTube video about it. It's all there and just takes a little bit of advanced planning.

Ah diddums. Let me go find the world's smallest violin for your trials of having to run your company. I bet you are still using a ledger and quill pen to do your books aren't you. Most businesses adapt very quickly to the ever changing demands and needs of their customers. In this instance, increasing numbers of customers are choosing payment without cash. They are using cards, phone or even their watches. With the introduction of contactless it is even easier to use electronic payments for even the smallest of transactions. There are tiny independent stores and stalls operating entirely cashless operations and they're not bitching about card fees or 'inconvenience' or disrupting the flow of ones bank statement..... You think most customers give a toss about the administrative burden of the business owners? Its part of the job. What about the other part of it. Have you stopped to think what less cash means? No worries about floats or counting or managing or transporting all these notes and coins. No trips to the bank required. Less security risk. Less bookkeeping as there are systems available which make it almost automatic and connected directly to your card machine. Takings information all available at the click of a mouse. Businesses being able to set up shop almost anywhere with nothing more than a small card reader and a mobile phone. Most people see that as things becoming easier and better.

Yes, massively. The evidence of which is shown all over the high Street. The dominance of Amazon and online supermarkets. The existence of budget airlines. The existence of services like Megabus and Megatrain. The ability to check in for flights online, breeze through the airport using a QR code, quickly deal with baggage and get on with the rest of our day. The huge savings to businesses and suppliers by having major elements of their operations, automated and computer controlled removing the necessity of vast amounts of personnel and paperwork. The ability for many businesses to now operate 24/7 opening and great convenience to us customers who don't fit into the ye olde 9 to 5, mon-fri regime..... You do seem to be extremely unfortunate having soooo many problems with seemingly every aspect of modern technology. Are you sure it's really all about the kit and not perhaps the user? This is not some new fangled concept. Heavens sake broadband internet alone has been mainstream in many people's homes for nearly 15 years. Dial up started to come on the scene in people's homes nearly 30 years ago. The early versions of online shopping and banking have been in existence since the 1990s. Even back in the Teletext days, tele-sales of certain products and services were available all using electronic transactions and credit cards. Of course you are free to boycott a business all you want. But in my opinion all you're doing is inconveniencing yourself. Its estimated that over a quarter of all global transactions these days are made online. That stat includes third world countries who barely have electricity let alone internet. So that's 2.1 billion online transactions that us westernised world is embracing. E-commerce and electronic transactions are not going to be slowing down. Even the most elderly and vulnerable luddite has over the years had to embrace change. Concepts like ATM machines replacing the nice friendly bank clerk, self service supermarkets replacing Arkwrights Store. They've managed through the shock of cheques being replaced by plastic debit cards. They had to learn to adapt to that really complicated thing of using a chip+pin machine rather than signing a receipt. They've had their old paper bus passes replaced by contactless cards and somehow managed. They've survived the great revolution between rotary dial phones, cordless phones and shock horror mobiles. They coped. They battled through the disruption as their simple television with five channels became replaced by some digital box witchcraft and it's electronic program guide yet still manage to tune into the Antiques Roadshow without a crisis. Life evolves. Technology evolves. Always has done and there are no excuses to choosing to be left behind.

To be fair, that seems to be a trait across all daytime television. It's TV mostly for the pensioners who seem to love that cosy familiarity identikit format everyday. Daytime Countdown has been doing it for 40 plus years. With exception of [fill in name of contestant] and [fill in name of dictionary corner celebrity with product to plug] it's host script may well as be a photocopy of the same thing they were using in 1982. Near everything on ITV's daytime schedule between around 9:30 and 6:00 p.m. couldn't be any more cut and paste if it tried. Same on BBC with all their consumer grumbling, house buying and car boot programs. Come Dine With Me, funny as it is, feels like it's been on air for 120 years. Same with The Chase. As for the former Deal or No Deal, its absolute work of witchcraft that they managed to nick a glorified 5 min open the box segment from Des O'Connors Take your Pick and turn it into some cultish, melodramatic, tension inducing, hour long saga.

One has been dead for several years. The other is over 80 and their TV work slowed because they were suffering a string of mental health and other illnesses including spells in psychiatric hospitals. Hardly some big conspiracy. They were 'deplatformed' as you dramatically say, for that pesky inconvenience of being seriously ill and/or dead. Can we at least get some relevant and current examples of the point you are trying to argue.

Yes, very funny. The point is that Poundland is certainly deemed a "major retailer". The business has near 900 stores and on last reports made nearly £540m despite being in the middle of the 2020 pandemic. That's a level of operation and business some of the premium stores could only dream of. So despite all the snobiness and mickey taking it gets - plenty of people must be buying in there.

What are you talking about? No major retailers? What about Marks and Spencer. TK. Maxx. H&M. Primark. Boots. Sports Direct. USC. Wilkinson. Poundland. B&M. WHSmith.... All of them are national brands if not some international. Thats before we get onto the smaller specialist shops like, shoes, books, telecom, games and scattering of supermarket brands. Yes - we don't have many of the ye olde big department stores anymore, but that's a global downturn, not just unique to Sheffield. Debenhams has left gaping holes in cities and large towns all over the place. House of Fraser have been teetering on the edge for the past decade and are still in the process of closing stores elsewhere, including the mighty Leeds and one of their flagship buildings in the centre of Cardiff. Even the most famous shopping street in the country, Oxford Street, is a shadow of its former self. Losing it's massive flagship Debenhams building, House of Fraser about to leave Central London altogether, Allders collapsed. BHS collapsed, flagship John Lewis building leasing out it's upper floors to reduce its store size.... Put the tin foil hat away. There's no conspiracy. We customers need to accept we are the primary contributor to the declining department stores. We can't embrace the convenience of online shopping and next day Prime delivery at the same time as bemoaning the loss of extremely expensive, five story retail relic, wastes of prime city real estate. Stores do not make money from streams of customers going in, looking at the pretty decor, prodding and poking the merchandise before simply going home and ordering something online. Its no coincidence that the stores which are surviving generally have a far lower amount of real estate costs, less branches, more selective product lines and offer a service, style, facilities or attraction which makes people want to visit them. Good grief. Selfridges in London has a skate park in it. Harvey Nicholas are famous for their cocktail bars. Fenwick's have their annual animated window displays and light performances. John Lewis is converting themselves into becoming house builders, furniture rental services and flower arrangers. Even our own Atkinsons plays the gimmicks with their hard sell regarding their independence, their three restaurants and very select range of products tailored very carefully for the local market and constantly updated. In contrast, one of the main problems that Debenhams had, as was mirrored by places such as Sears and even Macy's in America, is that they simply became far too big, far too identikit, far too bland, offering non-discript in house labels at premium prices in dull surroundings and didn't stand a chance. I would like nothing more than a retailer to take over the old Debenhams unit on the moor and according to rumours in The Star that may be happening, but it has to be something that people are going to want to go shopping for. If we want things to survive, if we want those premium names to take an interest in coming here, it's up to us locals to be actually buying and putting money in the tills not just look at and laugh at the price tags. Not to be hypocritically making pathetic excuses about parking charges or traffic restrictions when the fact is thousands of people still work in town every single day walking past all these shops and even more numbers are now moving back into the city boundaries to live there.

In my opinion, the fact that there is nearly always someone screaming BBC bias - no matter what side of the fence they're on - demonstrates they are getting it about right. It's a fabulous juxtaposition when the BBC gets criticised for being nothing more than the "Tory government mouthpiece" at the same time as being criticised for being too controlled by "a load of lefty liberal woke non-binary vegan Islington types". I think most people do know that you do not need a licence for on demand. But most people still watch a lot of broadcast television. Lots of people still like to have live news. They have sports subscriptions and like to watch live matches. They like the access of being able to watch big national events broadcast. Every season we have the Twitterati going mad for the latest gossip on Love Island wetting themselves in anticipation for the next linear broadcast episode. We have the cheesiest and tackiest of live entertainment shows still drawing in millions of viewers each and every week. All of that, irrelevant of the channel or network still requires a tv licence which people are seemingly still prepared to pay. I see lots of arguments regarding scrapping the so called "BBC licence" but are people so naive to think that the government will simply end it there. So, let's say the TV licence gets dropped. But how long will it be before something else takes its place. Internet licence? Government communications levy? Broadcast signals tax? Somehow they would have to find a way cos the infrastructure wouldn't just go away and would still need to be paid for. People need to be careful what they wish for. There is already many examples of countries which still force some sort of communications licence and yet their state broadcasters are filled with adverts, product placement and commercial interference that most of our BBC channels escape from.

Oh yes, that famous quote from a certain someone about how they remember when you could park "anywhere" in Sheffield "for free" without any problems..... Hmmm. I wonder which poster boldly said that before going all quiet when called out to give some examples.

They are not though. That's the point. Leaving the retirement age untouched potentially means that "kids" today are going to be working and paying into the system 5 or 10 years less then those currently reaching retirement plus potentially living 10 extra years longer. You really think that's going to be sustainable?

I don't agree. Things have evolved dramatically over the decades. First and foremost, life expectancy which has increased by nearly 10 years since 1960. Back in the black and white days, it was very common for people to leave school at 15 go straight into a lifetime of work from the shop floor up, often in heavy industry, manual, labour or extremely basic work conditions with basic equipment. Even the white collar professional office jobs often involved laborious, time consuming and manual processes. Now, we have increasing numbers of people staying in school through to 18 years old, then spending several more years in colleges, academies or university, the odd gap year here and there and not even beginning to start full time employment until early or even mid 20s. For the career professionals. Many also have the benefits of flexible or hybrid working arrangements, paid sick leave, paid holidays, parental leave, carer, wellbeing initiatives, sabbaticals.... Even for those in the more industrial and manual professions, their trade has moved on significantly with health and safety regulations, increased protections, welfare standards, sanitation, modernised equipment, semi-automation, robotics... Is it really so shocking to you that in return for all this evolution, retirement age itself would be increased. It's pretty logical. If there are increasing numbers of people joining the workforce much later in life, spending less years paying into the system with an ever increasing life expectancy post retirement - how on earth would it be possible for things to remain status quo. If people desire to retire early, that's their business. But they should pay for it. Why is everything the state's problem.

I wouldn't get too excited. As someone whose worked in both sides of the industry for over 20 years, I have heard it all before and will believe it when I see it. Also not convinced that one survey conducted by some claims management company is going to be the most accurate picture. People can 'say' what they like. They can portray that they are above that sort of thing. They can claim that they wouldn't demean themselves. Everyone seems to dislike lawyers until the time comes when they need one. Fact is the claimant firms will always find some way to aggressively market something. When recession hits, people will always suddenly backtrack on their 'principles' and have an excuse to pursue a claim and try get a bit of money in. Way back in the day, reforms to the civil procedure, were going to revolutionise the personal injury market. The claims still flowed through. The collapse of The Accident Group was going to bring an end to all those spurious heavily marketed pressurised claims pursuits. But they kept on coming. The changes to the costs regime limiting how much claim firms could earn were going to bring a slow down but the claimant firms simply ditched whiplash and supermarket slips for more lucrative areas like consumer complaints, group litigation, PPI mis-selling, cavity wall mis-selling, occupational disease, data breaches and vehicle emissions.... There is still big money to be made and for those effective firms who keep ahead of the curve they will not be giving it up without a fight.

See above. What exactly have I willingly misinterpreted? It's very clear in black and white what Anna said. "... anywhere in Sheffield for free as long as you weren't causing an obstruction..." The key word is highlighted and we all know it's horse crap. That's why there's been all the backtracking and deflection. It is not trolling to call out people who are making ridiculous statements and refuse to answer questions when challenged. Now can we just move on with our lives.

No but you are the one making statements which are being challenged and deflecting giving answers to a direct question. Guess what that makes you look like.....

Oh really. Well, a couple of decades ago was 2003 so go on then. Let's hear all these wonderful easy free parking areas all over the city centre. I was working in a city centre in 2003 and paying for parking every day. So were thousands of others in the many multi stories and surface car parks and on street parking meters all around. Are you Anna in disguise? You sound just as deluded.

^^^^^ Perfect example of why the NHS will always remain a wasteful, flabby, mismanaged, over protected, overused, political football, bottomless money pit. Even the mere faintest hint of a possible informal discussion regarding maybe the word "reform" and instantly come along the hysterics screaming profiteering and corporate greed 🙄 Sometimes I feel it deserves to fail and collapse. Might be the only thing needed for people to properly wake up and get in the real world about what it should be offering, what isn't essential, how much is being wasted, how badly its being abused and taken for granted and what it should actually be providing.

I agree it cannot continue to operate at this level. However, there is other more pressing questions to be answered. Are all those 30,000 vacancies actually essential and necessary to the service. Are there any services, treatments or clinic types that in the real world are non-essential luxuries and shouldn't be bankrolled by taxpayers? Are there areas of wastage and abuse of service which should be culled before recruiting more personnel? Are some of those vacancies outdated pen pushing jobs that could be dealt with by more efficient or alternative methods? Are those vacancies, duplications or extensions of things which could and have been more cost effectively and efficiently done by external private companies? The NHS is not some protected bubble. It is ripe for absolute reform. Top to bottom.

It's not about 'dispensing with people' as you well know. It's about bringing the long term numbers down along with every other initiative and long term proposal discussed in these global conferences. Jesus Christ it's like debating with a petulant child. I am well aware of my own contributions and impact. I am well aware of the corporate and political responsibilities also affecting. That's why I put in the last paragraph of my earlier post. I am also well aware that there is no magic wand solution to make everything happen. But for once in your life try to read beyond the soundbites and reactionary headlines. Stop letting your prejudice against anyone even slightly rich and powerful cloud your rational thought. Yes westernised industrialised nations and those battling to become one. But that doesn't mean that overpopulation isn't ALSO a contributing factor that should ALSO be discussed.

He's right though. Its being widely established that population numbers are a major contributor towards climate change and the environmental impact. It is regular talked about, even in jest, how the most sustainable living, cycling, ecomentalist, vegan, self sufficient couple choosing to breed a child can cause more damage to the planet than the most gas guzzling, cow eating, NASCAR loving, 4x4 driving, childless couple. We have all seen around the world how there are poverty stricken nations struggling on meager resources and having to regularly appeal for handouts from other more wealthy provinces but are still breeding like rabbits. Vast numbers of children born every year with nothing and parents and cultures who continue to spawn with no thought for their impact on their own and other dwindling resources. It is far from being the only contributory factor of course. There is wider aspects of human, corporate and political responsibility playing their part too. But population cannot simply be dismissed as some throw away soundbite or headline just because some unpopular rich person said it. Doesnt make it wrong.

Never mind 'just saying' and 'principles'. Stop with the backtracking and diversions. You clearly said: So when was this wonderful utopia you describe? Absolutely free car parking anywhere and everywhere in the city. No yellow lines, no traffic restrictions, no control zones, no parking meters. You remember it so fondly. So when was it? A quick flick through the photographic archives of the city clearly show images going back to the '60s and 70s filled with yellow lines and parking notices and parking meters. There were multi-story car parks that were built in late 1950s. There were surface car parks operated by the Council with signs showing pre decimalised currency. One of the biggest operators, NCP was established as far back as the 1930s and by 1948 was a nationwide company.... So let's jog your memory again. Was it really like you describe or just your rose tinted interpretation? Getting back on topic, whilst I'm never going to agree with every move the council makes against the motorists, I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. People are constantly whinging about lack of enforcement with traffic restrictions or inconsiderate drivers or hazardous acts because the police can't be everywhere all the time so surely delegating some of these minor infringement powers to the local authority is a good thing. After all, it's their road restrictions being breached in the main anyway. Seems a little bit of can't do right for doing wrong.

Oh really? Were you a foetus at the time because parking meters have been on these shores since the late 50s. By the end of the 60s charged car parking, traffic controls, yellow lines and restrictions had been well established. Add on the fact that car use absolutely exploded over the decades and you can't be so deluded to think there would remain some free for all when it comes to parking and traffic controls. As usual just a load of oversimplistic rose tinted guff.