ECCOnoob

A few more years they will be earning as much as train drivers. From what I read a lot of them are spending plenty of time sitting around at home too.

No, I don't live in a very different world to you. I just see things differently to you. Your story is not an original one. I might not be as old as you but even in these more modern times the circumstances exist. In fact, I know people just like you. People who used to playfully mock me when I was a lot younger. They were off doing their well-paid skilled trades. Lots of ready cash in their back pocket, lots of overtime hours, lots of good old site banter.... whilst I was sat in a dusty office block in a crappy admin job on fixed salary. They used to come home from their shifts and be in the pub multiple times a week enjoying their lives while I was spending after hours studying for some degree costing me tens of thousands of pounds.... Then as my friend's heavy industries declined and those trade jobs were drying with gaps in employment I was reaching my 20th continuous year career still sat behind a desk, steadily working my way up in what you'd dismiss as that good wage job running about in that firms car.... The only difference is my friends aren't jealous of that. My friends understand that I worked for that. Took the risks and investment to do it. My friends understand that hard work comes in different forms, my hard work sat my behind desk staring at computers and reading/drafting reams of pages of documents each day is just as taxing as the manual hard work that they do every day.

I am not saying that employees don't deserve to be rewarded and incentivised and given praise for the work they do. However, if it wasn't for you breaking off taking the risk, putting up the money, setting up that business of yours and building it into one with X number of customers you wouldn't have jobs to give to those 36 employees who I presume are more than happy to accept their pay packets every month. Plus, of course you taking the responsibilities to manage that business is also keeping the cash flow to be paying the rent, paying the equipment, paying for materials for your employees to do their work.... No matter how valuable the contribution from employees is, it doesn't detract from the basic fact that business owners, shareholders and corporations are always going to be the ones with dominant power and always going to be the ones who have the right to take 'the cream from the top' because it's their money. How can it be any other way. Employees of course have a right to be valued but their 'power' comes in the saleability of their skills, their rarity, their worth to the business, their ease of replaceability, global labour demand and commercial pressures..... this is not exactly a new story. Ultimately is a contractual arrangement which is signed up for. They are paid for their services to the business for the job that business orders them to fulfil. Whichever way people try and spin it is far majority of circumstances that employees need their employers more than the other way around. Last time I checked, the vast majority of the public sector doesn't make money. It's just very good at spending *cough* wasting other peoples hard earned. Just how exactly is the economy supposed to be without that private sector investment, enterprise and profit making that the earlier poster seems to be rilling about.

Ah diddums. Why didn't you choose to elevate yourself, retrain, reskill, seek further qualifications and advance to get yourself into that position you seemingly are so jealous of. You know "do something about it" as you so eloquently say yourself. Yes yes businesses need the hard graft of the workers but that's the job they are paid to do and the job they sign up for. Dont like it, change. Look for something else. Prove your worth... Just dont forget its those bosses and leaders who keep the company running, the operations, the strategy, the finances, the payroll flowing. Its those "rich" owners and directors and shareholders who put their necks on the line, take their risks and put their own money into a forming, developing or investing into a business to bankroll its workers to be paid, keep the lights on, purchase supplies, purchase equipment, buy/rent the premises..... Damn right they are going to keep "skimming off the top" its their money. Its their profit. Its those private businesses shareholdings who contribute to our economy, contribute to the public purse, contribute to many of our major infrastructure, contribute to many of our pension schemes.... Its those private businesses and enterprises that keeps this tiny island on the global stage in the ever competitive global markets. All a damn sight more than a large majority of our our overprotected, wasteful, incompetent and inefficient public sector.

Honestly, why does every single news article that even hints at some changing language have to be accompanied by the lazy default of "woke millennials". For one thing, plenty of those millennials are now in there forties so hardly cutting edge youth. Also, this survey was commissioned on an online bingo site which is hardly going to be frequented by Brenda and Doris clutching their dobbers who pop down to Mecca once a week. After all, plenty of people on this forum claim that anyone over 60 somehow is a complete technophobe continually prejudiced by the ever advancements of modern Life. The fact is that if bingo wants to keep any sort of popularity, it has to evolve. Many of the 'traditional' terms will be deemed completely outdated, meaningless and even totally necessary to its modern-day clientele. There has been a whole new wave of pop culture, references, gimmicks and jokes and it's only right that things change to keep the interest up. Seems to me like nothing but some glorified advertorial peace with the usual clickbaited headline.

That's not remotely the point I was making. I'm commenting about why someone was specifically criticising the BBC for producing a cover poster of soap stars dressed in school uniforms and thus outrageously sexualizing the image of school kids ...... when lots of other media, publications, magazines, films, music videos, newspapers quite happily engage in the same sort of conduct and it's somehow accepted. Like I keep saying, if people want to be outraged, fine. But be outraged about the whole thing not just selected parts dependent on what suits their agenda and narrative.

I am not having "a go" i'm engaging in debate. I mean that's the only purpose of this thread right? Get people commenting? Since there's scant facts or substance to the actual incident to talk about might as well get on with wading through the tangents, speculation about yoofs with with smart phones, video games and moral upbringings, arguments over facebook posts, Palestine, hate speech punishments being too harsh..... and all before the Police have barely started their their investigations 🙄

Yes, some do but millions of others don't so what's so scary? Is there really a massive proven probability of a causal link between violent video games and violent acts in the street or is it just hyped up over exaggerated speculation fuelled by media looking to boost ratings. This is the danger. Some people are chronic alcoholics but it doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys the odd tipple once or twice a week becomes chronically dependant. Some people are morbidly obese and literally eating themselves to death, but that doesn't mean that every single person who enjoys the odd treat or fast food burger is automatically of medical concern.

Thoughts like what? Just what exactly are you expecting people to say other than how sad, hope the victims recover soon, well done the police for seemingly catching the alleged suspect quickly.. That's it. That's all anyone else can say because they don't know anything. Everything else is speculation and rumour and ill-informed opinions and stereotyping which will inevitably sway in one direction regardless of any facts.

Why the whole women and children thing? I fully understand children just like I wouldn't expect lots of types of adult conversations to be happening in front of kids. However, as for in front of women. Why not? We are long away from the ye olde days when women are supposedly treated as some weaker sex, some delicate flowers kept indoors except in the odd special occasion when they come out to show off their pretty little dress and be shielded away in separate lounge rooms from those dirty gruff manly blokes. Most women I know give as good as they get when it comes to language - if not worse when they all get together.

The fact is, what people classify as "obscene language" is constantly evolving. So called swearing becoming more acceptable in adult conversations has been in progress for many years now. At one point, even the mildest swear words like 'bloody' and 'crap' would have get a reaction but now they are not even post watershed. Equally, lots of words, phrases and slang freely used in the 1960s and '70s will be considered highly offensive today and will certainly get a ban, removal or shock reaction. It's how it's always been.

The post I was specifically responding to was someone complaining adult soap stars being dressed up in school uniform. The point I was making is that there was lots of other circumstances where grown adults are portraying school kids. Lots of other circumstances where fresh young girls are happily paraded around, photographed, sung about, letched over and chased around for titillation, comedic effect and marketing purposes which seems perfectly accepted by society. Hence why I brought up the subject of selective outrage.

Maybe people should think carefully about that before voting for them then. Can we just not forget what the purpose of an MP supposed to be. Our voice in parliament. The people we go to to raise our concerns and seek resolution to our grievances. The people we choose to represent us and vote on our behalf. The people we believed are best to serve us and our constituency. If people don't think good old, tells it like it is Nige has sufficient drive and assertiveness to put their point of view forward or doesn't have the will to fight for their slots on ballots and debates and bills or can't be bothered to put the effort in to do the job he's supposed to serve (instead seemingly spending time massaging his own ego and boosting the PR of the right wing nuts across the pond)... well tough. They should have voted for somebody else.

How about a more recent and prime example of selective outrage that our fickle society does. Right now there's been the massive controversy over the Paris Olympics opening ceremony. Lots of wails and crying about some painted model jigging about in their underpants and "oh won't someone think of the children" being screamed. And yet, those very same publications, merely a few days later were posting whole articles simply highlighting the well endowed package of a young French diver. Thousands of articles and posts. Photographs, slowed down videos, zoomed in shots, attention grabbing titles, all there for everyone to see. All reposted, clickbaited and repeatedly highlighted to make sure everyone gets a good look. Didn't hear many people screaming "oh, won't somebody think of the children" about that. So. Two blokes in their pants and media focus solely on their tackle. Yet one seemingly interesting legitimate news the other one arrgh! outrage!

1. So were lots of other institutions with a culture of similar behaviour. 2. There are things worse than just cover-ups. There is exactly the same behaviour blatantly happening right in view but seemingly, if it involves some lewd but popular comedian or some god like pop star or some 'character' down the local pub its just played down. 3. No, they weren't supposed to to be documentaries but they were a very clear reflection of exactly what was happening in in the real world across a wide section of society. So I ask again, why just criticism at the BBC. Why not all the other aspects where the exact same sort of behaviour was blatantly happening right in the view of everyone but people in those circumstances seem to make excuses, accept and play down. Why the selective outrage.

Oh come off it. There really does seem to be selective outrage with all this stuff. Good grief, there was an entire film genre of grown adults dressed up like school girls for titillation or comedic purposes. The 1970s and even into the 80s was filled with lewd comedy whose basic plot was some blonde big breasted girl being perved over, chased, fondled and paraded around by some ageing greasy man. All over popular culture there has been schoolgirl dressed images of women paraded across magazines with their bits out or singing songs like "hit me baby one more time". There were shows on TV where actual children were made up like a slapper and shoved in some tight dress to sing completely inappropriate songs like "like a virgin" Certain tabloids were more than happy to promote their fresh faced new page 3 model who's just turned 16 all ready to get them out for the lads to be splashed across millions of copies of newsprint. We had scores of rockstars, pop singers and DJs having increasingly of the increasing ageing and decrepaid variety more than happy to absorb the fame, attention, and other 'favours' of their adoring young teenage fans, screaming and chanting and clamouring to get into their dressing rooms... Where is their shaming. Why just the BBC under attack. How come some of that behaviour is played down as just being of its time or cheeky or just banter or just comedy with participants still being classed as heroes and national treasures and yet seemingly other people or corporations engaged in exactly the same type of behaviour are singled out for criticism and bring hauled over the coals. Come on if people are going to be outraged - then outrage for the whole of it not just one particular sector or selected people.

Oh do stop. All of that crap can be applied to Labour too. It's politics. How many times do I have to say this. Look back in history. Look at the amount of times the Tories have been in power over a century compared to the amount of times labour have. Even when Labour do get the top office, it's always when they are leaning more right than the left. That's why they get criticised with nicknames like 'red tories' etc. It couldn't be more clear what side of the political spectrum the population and electorate lean to in this country. The evidence is there. That is why your brand of politics keeps losing and losing spectacular every time they desperately try to gain any sort of influence. When will the message finally get through.

I have plenty. Its how I'm able to debate like an adult with reasoned arguments and facts to support the points I make. I agree there are some personalities who are overexposed and suffer such fate. However, there are also plenty of personalities who, despite many years fronting the same sorts of shows or even being 'the face' of a particular sector of broadcasting, they maintain their popularity and their careers right through to their retirement. In my opinion, Claire Balding is one of those presenters. While she does frequent several programs, I certainly don't feel she falls into the category of overexposed, desperate, low rent host making guest appearances on every single thing they can get their hands on. She also has a far more established and respected legacy with the network, her peers and credentials to make her more serious. Thus, I believe she will maintain a presence until such time as she chooses to stop. I may well be wrong in that. Who knows? Who cares?

Well, unless she has a major scandal sometime in the future, her eventual retiring from broadcasting will probably be the best you can hope for. Whether you like her or not, she can hardly be classed to some talentless fly by night presenter. She has been at the BBC for over 30 years, was promoted to head presenter of their flagship sports broadcast a couple of years ago, received several broadcast awards including a BAFTA and awarded OBE and CBE honours. I can't see her disappearing from our screens anytime soon.

People have free speech but it's not free from consequences. Plus there is a million miles difference between free speech and hate speech, between free speech and publishing defamatory, false, manipulated and deliberately provocative statements on a public platform. Free speech doesn't extend to targeted attacks against certain individuals or groups of people which could be deemed discrimination, harassment or bullying. Free speech doesn't extend to groups of thugs gathering together to harass, cause property damage, create violence and intimidation.

What's ridiculous? She's a sports presenter. That's her job. Presenting sports programs. She will particularly be selected for programs involving horses because that's a lot of her legacy. All networks have their pool of regulars and 'faces' to front specific things. People like David Coleman, Des Lynam, Steve Ryder, Sue Barker, Hazel Irvine, Gabby Logan, Gary Linker, spend years, sometimes even whole careers linked to specific programs and no one's whinging about it.

Even if you do contact them weekly the council don't do anything. "we don't have the resources at the moment" "you are already on the waiting list" "its already part of our scheduled programme of works" "we have just changed contractors and its taking time" "its not a priority" Six months is nothing. There are stories of people waiting several years for their block repairs to be done .

Depends whether that 'paedophile' at the time was already found guilty and convicted. Until that happened, who was the BBC to make judgement about Edwards. Last time I check we still have innocent until guilty. All too easy to be making comment with hindsight.

I couldn't give a flying fig what attention seeking Sadiq Khan says. I'm more interested in the faeces that you're spouting. The last government statistics 82% of the population ethnicity is white. Even in your sample of London, which is the most ethnically diverse city in the country, it is still 53% White. That is a majority no matter how much you try and spin it otherwise to try to desperately back up your nonsense. I think it's pretty obvious what your issue is. It's certainly more than just a failure to understand basic maths.

Can't wait to see your evidence for that.