ECCOnoob

Depends on the story and subject. I do it with most news reports on anything to be honest. What's your point? Let's just get this out the way or we'll be here all night!! I am not saying that the royals are perfect. I am not saying that Prince Charles was innocent or some saint either. God I may go as far as to say that he may have started it. It's was clear that neither of them were happy and both had problems. The whole family will have skeletons in their closet and faults but that's just like every other human being. However, since the topic swayed to Diana that is the opinion I am giving. That is what was under discussion. All I'm trying to counter in this debate is the portrayal of Diana as the innocent party and barbs thrown at the royals for being some pantomime baddie in the story. I think that is wrong so I'm giving the picture that I thought was a real Diana. I'm sure many will disagree.

What information do you refer to? You mean the widely publicly available info about her upbringing and background and families to the point she met and married prince Charles? Do you mean the very widely and publicly available inquest and police investigations, discussions and reporting into the cause of death in Paris? Do you mean her widely publicised affairs during the marriage and relationships afterwards? Do you mean her widely reported tensions with the media, selected tell-all interviews and biographical books that she chose to engage with? I'm hardly forming my opinion on lots of wild speculation and theory. I look beyond just some headline or soundbite. I read up on things and take interest. My thoughts are certainly a damn sight more credible than people throwing out accusations that the Queen murdered her.

Not really. I have no issues with the monarchy but I'm hardly showing derranged support for them either. I was not exactly a massive fan of Diana but didn't want to see her dead either.... What I am doing is strongly countering the seemingly frequent attempts to portray Diana as if she was this sweet, angelic, wholly innocent person who was continually bullied, played upon and ill-treated by her evil husband and the rest of the nasty royal family. I am countering this nonsense that she was the victim who was plagued by the paparazzi and singled out despite the fact that she very obviously and manipulatively courted such attention and used it very much for her advantage when it's suited to her. I am also simply countering these ludicrous theories and conspiracies that somehow she was murdered at the hands of senior roles when it was very clear her death was caused by a drunk driver.

Business rates are nothing to do with who owns a building or who a company pays their lease to. It's entirely separate. You really need to wise up on how things work in the world before you embarrass yourself with these uninformed rants. The council own very little in the city centre. Most of the buildings and premises are owned by private Enterprises which offer them for lease through agents or sell them off to private developers. The council can't force tenants into buildings. They can't suddenly change a buildings use overnight without lengthy legal and public consultations. It's exactly the same in cities across the world.

Yeah you keep telling yourself that. "....Tradesmen and taxis always prefer cash....." except for the fact that services like Uber, Cityride and Bolt are kicking the ass of traditional taxi cabs. There's also the advantage of the drivers made more safe as they are not carrying around loads of cash and don't have to worry about whether or not the job will be paid when people get out as it's all sorted in advance. I can name dozens of tradesmen who happily get paid by BACS transfer after a quote has been agreed and the work done. Rural Wi-Fi signal is nothing to do with it. It is not impossible to have card payments dealt with via a phone line as they have been done for decades prior. It is also possible to deal with the transaction of a job when the tradie is back home with normal phone line internet access - which they will obviously have to run their business. Even before that, most contractors I would hire for the bigger projects in my home button didn't get paid in a lump sum of cash. They would get a cheque as it was simply ridiculous for any normal person to be messing around dealing is that amount of notes. Maybe just perhaps, I have been sheltered. You are obviously used to dealing with very different businesses to me. You must know lots of Bodge Job Daves and Market Trader Micks who are all so cash obsessed. Now concentrate, here comes the science bit Jennifer Aniston used to say..... Stats show a 70% decline in people doing cash payments since 2010. If that sort of drop applied to any other circumstance it would have been killed off a long time ago. Entire businesses now choosing not to accept cash. New entrants to the consumer banking sector working from entirely digital and virtual operations with not a single banknote crossing the threshold. We even have entire New Digital currencies which people are genuinely and legitimately investing and building without any kind of hard physical manifestation.. I bet you're just a sort of person who back in a day would mourning over the loss of bartering with goats and sheep. Protesting about the introducing of those newfangled bank notes when a coin purse was serving you just well. The sort of person crying over the loss of routine chequebooks. Life evolves. The vast majority of our workforce gets paid through cashless means. They have been doing so for at least the past 40 years. Benefits and pensions are no longer routinely doled out in cash with people wasting their time gathering and clogging up the post office every fortnight... virtually nobody these days is separating their monies into little brown envelopes ready to wonder round town paying the YEB or the gas board or the council tax, wasting all day popping from building-to-building queueing up. These days even charity collectors and some street buskers have evolved into having card readers. We are watching and streaming unknown artists, performers and musicians online - tipping them through credits on our various digital platforms. There are entire objects, projects, performances, arts and films which are being entirely crowdfunded through digital donations by thousands or even millions of anonymous backers. The way we are earning, funding and paying is continually changing. You think what you like, but you are very much in the minority. You're grand gestures about walking out of businesses that don't accept cash will be barely noticed. For many businesses, dinosaur customers like that refusing to embrace change are not welcome. In my opinion, those businesses that you seem to be supporting that don't accept cards have nothing to be 'proud' of as you declare. To me just goes to show how outdated and stubborn they are As for what you and the rest of your tin foil hat brigade claim you know is "going on" that's just a lot of paranoia and excuse making.

No, a young woman and mother lost her life because she was living it up around Paris and was escaping the Press she courtered by jumping into a car with an (albeit unknown) drunk driver. A car crash in the tunnel being controlled by a drunk chauffeur is what killed Diana. That's it. Take the tin foil hat off. Charles may have been having an affair with his old flame, but let's not make out that she was Mrs Innocent. *cough ginger harry*. I certainly never bought into the 'people's princess' nonsense. They all have their elements of philanthropy, patriotism and charity work. She was not alone in that, she just was better at manipulating the tablpid press to make her look good and all the others look like terrible establishment bullies. Don't be fooled by it. She was a Sloaney through and through. She was just as establishment as they were. She was well and truly within the County Set and if not bagging a Royal it woulf have been somebody on similar levels and standing. Just because they are very posh dining at Langhams Brasserie and shopping in Peter Jones doesn't mean they can't shag around and do the mating dance any less than Tracy the Tart from Essex.

Misogynistic 70s comedians mostly. I am all for the highlighting of unconscious bias against men in domestic abuse cases and very often rape cases. I am certainly a champion supporter for protection of both parties with complete unequivocal anonymization of both the named accused and accuser until such time as a judge has passed verdict. However let's not turn this into some "men are reclaiming their ground" debate. It is pretty obvious from a quick look back in history that women were certainly the wider oppressed ones for a long time in both their domestic and and restricted working lives. That is not the topic here.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣...... ......🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Please stop I can't take it anymore. I can hardly breathe. The world's finest comedians couldn't have come up with material like that. I assume your "business diploma" was from the Del Boy Economics School of Peckham. If a business is big enough to start having employees full time and liable to responsibilities and burdens for sorting out correct national Minimum Wage compliance, tax, national insurance, pension deductions and all the insurances involved in dealing with both general public and employee liabilities, its going to be having its own bank account. Any other type of operation will be moronic and highly risky. There's also the questions of basic accounting when it comes to profit and loss, tax legality for which, no matter how small the business, books need to be kept. Therefore, continual use of cash for transactions to suppliers, contractors, utilities, premises, HMRC and employees becomes a burden. No person running any sort of substantial legit business in 2022 is going to walk around with wads of cash in their back pocket or a big sack with pound signs on the front of it. The reason for the surge in popularity for use of card payments and electronic transactions, even for small traders, is that cash in a troublesome and costly thing to process. There is not the time for going back and forth to banks, landlords and suppliers depositing it and making payments (...that's if you can even find a local branch open for you or a supplier/ landlord / utility company that has ability to pay by such method). Cash also is a major risk during its counting, sorting, handling through tills, storage and transportation. Now all a business simply needs to do is get themselves a cheap little white box and quickly download an app on their phone and that's it. Away they go taking dozens, hundreds or thousands of transactions with no hassle. It can be stored, carried and set up anywhere it needs to be by used. It can be left around on a counter for any of your employees to use with minimal risk compared to having to protect a till full of cash money or carrying around wads of notes on one's person. The accounts are self-managed, and any transactions to suppliers or your staff can be done at the click of a button. The auditability is instantly clear and in the event of any theft or fraud has a much better opportunity of being spotted and potentially recovered. For most sensible businesses, the transaction fee and the minimal initial setup costs are far offset by the wider benefits. That is the reality. Not your warped interpretation. Ask yourself way so many small tradesman, market stalls, independent vendors, small boutiques, taxi services and even ye olde greasy spoons are now increasingly taking card payment options or even refusing cash altogether.

Nope. I am not accepting this, how much longer can this sorry excuse keep being rolled out about technology and training. Even the oldest people still in the working world on the cusp of retirement, would have had at least 25 years of their career exposed to or be using mainstream computer systems, mobile phones and the internet. For the vast majority of people in the workforce, they've had even longer career exposure to 'modern' day work technology and its newfangled concepts. Even way back the 70s computers were starting to infiltrate the office and by the end of the 80s it was becoming the norm. Mobile phones have been common by the 1990s as was the internet. Since the late-2000s onwards, even the most 'manual' of operations has at some point involved computing or mobile technology. Warehouse workers, checkout cashiers, delivery drivers, labourers, builders, receptionists even cleaners will at some point have their hand touched by the silicon chip. You keep trying to portray that there are entire swathes of workers out there who can't cope beyond pad and pencil or filling in forms on carbon paper chits. I say nonsense. They have had more than ample opportunities to learn for at minimum half of their career time. It's called adapting. If they don't know, they need to be retraining or taking courses pretty sharpish to drag themselves into a working world which has been in existence for 20 to 30 years.They can't sit there refusing to embrace change and then be moaning about being left behind. Generations before had to cope as will the future ones. One of my relatives had a career with British Telecom starting off in dusty old switchrooms with plug and cord boards, by the time they retired they had to adapt to continual change in computerisation and auto call switching including learning code, bits of programming and keyboarding skills as late as into their 60s. I have friends who work in house clearance and Council renovation roles where they had to learn over the years increased use in computerised reports, filling in forms online to be sent back to their base, mobile technology and the use of tablets when on sites. Even in my own legal career, I started in an era of of dusty old law books, dictating letters on tape for Miss Smith to type up on electric typewriters. I've had to evolve to using online case management programs, web-based law journals and virtual court hearings. By the time I reach retirement there will likely be mainstream use of voice recognition, artificial intelligence and automated documents. The evolution of the workplace and its technology has always been moving forward.

Bet there are plenty enjoying the extra bank holiday arising from the the celebration though. Plenty out there enjoying the sunshine yesterday. Town was certainly busy, the bars were rammed, the food festival was busy.... over in my local Village the bunting was out across the roundabout and all the pubs had their flags, all filled with people enjoying a pint in the sun. Perhaps all those people would have preferred to be just a regular working Thursday eh? For all the criticism of 'Queenie day' not much whinging about that element. Just because not everyone is waving a flag on the mall or glued to the television watching proceedings, doesn't necessarily mean they are not reaping the benefits of the celebration another way.

** haha. Yeah well spotted. Serves me right for using voice recognition. Urban football might still be a crowd pleaser..... First one to score a goal through the lift doors of Marks & Spencer, foul play in the fitting rooms of H&M, bad tackles on display in the middle of Greggs etc....

What's your grand plan then? Pretty obvious that the council can't force tenants into buildings they don't own. It's obvious the council can't force building owners to lower rent or order they give freebies. The council can't force a change of use or ownership of a privately owned premises overnight without lengthy legal and public consultation process. The business of traditional bricks and mortar retail is in decline globally. It is not only affecting discount big box stores but even the premium end ones. Branches are closing left right and centre with many companies not surviving the obvious devastation caused by the pandemic. Us consumers are fickle beings, with our tastes, trends and fashions turning on a dime. To those who actually bother to walk around with their eyes open instead of sitting at home moaning about what they think and presume from behind a computer, it is clear there is a increase in popularity of small, independent, locally made or vintage, higher quality, quirky traders operating out of more unusual types of premises. Big buzzwords in reclaiming, reusing, and recycling former buildings for an alternative purpose to keep longevity. Massive increases in social conscience and concerns about where things are manufactured or how or the waste. Massive increases in the numbers of people living closer to city centres again, more socialising, entirely different work patterns due to the shifts to hybrid or remote working arrangements. Similar types of schemes have had success elsewhere and are great facilities to allow for small Independent Traders to get their business to the masses without the exorbitant costs of prime real estate. Such schemes are extremely popular around the world has been shown in other major cities. New York, Manchester, Bristol and London being a few off the top of my head. We even have a earlier adopter in our city anyway, with Krykl still keeping going down at Shalesmoor. Some people really need to grow up and realise that the days of Cockaynes, Walsh's, Pauldens and Ole In't Road are long gone. The purpose of the city centre has completely evolved, there is far more residential community and social aspects which go far beyond just shopping. The council are trying to bring something which is going to to bring football back to Fargate and keep it alive beyond 5p.m. as this new unit is going to be open well after the 'traditional' shop closing time. Something I certainly welcome. Honestly, its like people want it to fail so they can keep wallowing in their misery and slagging off the council. Jesus I'm not exactly their cheerleader of many of their decisions but this is certainly not one for criticism.

How about a bit of national pride. How about a bit of acknowledgement to this landmark moment in our nations history. How about a bit of interest in a significant part of our nation's culture and heritage. To the fact that this is a national celebration which goes far wider than just the royals. A celebration which has brought people together after the past two years of turmoil, disruption and sadness. Wallow in pity all you want. Fact is you live in a monarchy. It is what shapes this country. Its what sets us apart from many other nations and it's what kept this tiny little Island as a nation of importance and influence on the world stage. Fine if you don't like it, go live in some Republic then. However no doubt you'll still be finding something to whinge about when you realise that they all have their own types of parades, pageantry, national celebrations, spectacles and regalia involving their respective heads of state. The way you hysterically talk it's as if everyone in the nation is destitute and living on bread and water. Well take a look at the thousands of people out on the streets, or attending local events, or filling up bars and restaurants, or flooding are airports..... it clearly shows otherwise. Think of the other benefits this event is bringing. The millions of pounds all these tourists, packs of crews and journalists from around the globe are spending. The attention currently focused on this country from Alaska to New Zealand right now and what that could potentially translate to. You might be astounded to learn that all that has value to it. They could cancel it all tomorrow but you really think for one second that would instantly translate to social care budgets suddenly rocketing up or that the NHS will suddenly get some "cancelled pageantry" dividend. Just naive. God sake lighten up. Not every single thing has to be instantly compared to screams of "...how many nurses would that pay for?"

Well I'm glad you find false allegations of domestic abuse and malicious actions to seek to ruin someone's reputation and career to be amusing. Think what you like, but it was a high-profile high-value court case with massive interest around the globe and several newsworthy elements on both it's wider implications and legal precedent. That's news and it's what a news organisation is supposed to be reporting on. I don't know why you need to make some sly dig about the BBC being government-funded as it's completely irrelevant. Besides, given the state of most North American news broadcasts with their hyped up drama, shouty pouty anchors and OTT graphics, forgive me for not taking criticism of the BBC very seriously. Like all news organisations the Editor and Producer select on relevant and recency. Even more so when they are editing down and trimming fat for a highlights programme such as Newsnight. They will question is anything new occurring in the Russian war of the past 8 hours.... no. Is there any new element to the ongoing saga in the British Parliament over the past 8 hours... no. Is there any other major breaking incident which is going to trump the live verdict in a high profile court case...no. So it's bloody obvious that they are going to pick the freshest and most live happening thing to be top billing with all other ongoing issues or already reported stories to be secondary items on the show.

Like it or not it is a major story with a significantly high profile and high value court case. It also has wider interest as it is a significant result with a rarity of a defamation case pursued in the US courts actually been successful. That is quite a legal precedent and change from the norm. It's also demonstrates a contradiction when compared against similar defamation proceedings brought by Depp in the UK which had a completely opposite judgment. Something therefore noteworthy and worth analysing. Furthermore, the subject matter of the case arose from domestic abuse allegations and important messages arising from it, particularly the publications of such allegations without merit and the general points of believability of a male victim which is often overlooked by a general biased towards instantly siding with a female accuser. Despite what some people think, is far more than just some celebrity gossip. It's a news program and it's a news story.

God has someone seriously resurrected this prize tut of a thread again. Jesus, how many more times do we have to have this pointless argument. We are not in the dark ages anymore. We are no longer gathering around, paying a penny to take our turn on the communal bog. The train station has toilets, both bus interchanges have toilets, the council offices have toilets, the library has toilets, the galleries have toilets, the Jobcentre and benefits offices have toilets, M&S has toilets, Atkinsons have toilets, Next has toilets, the Market Hall has toilets, two of the Q Parks have toilets, every single bar, cafe and restaurant has toilets, the hotels have toilets, the cinemas have toilets, the theatres have toilets, every office building has toilets.... If that's not enough there are even a couple of coin operated automated toilets. Said before and will say again, if someone visiting the city centre does not at some point passed nearby or in any of the above what the hell are there in the wandering around for. Just how often is the occurrence when despite all of that availability above - someone is so desperately need that they have no option but to go in the street. Absolute nonsense. All this OTT demand to get our taxpayer monies literally peed away creating additional unnecessary facilities which are nowadays more than sufficiently covered covered by other means.

^^^^^ what they said. Same goes for banks, credit cards, utilities and mobile contracts. Shop around, keep an eye on the 'new customer' bonuses or payouts or discounts and don't be afraid of flitting from one to another whenever it suits. After all, it's not like a piece of clothing or car or house. Does it really matter what plastic is in your wallet, or what stupid named insurance company protects your car or what faceless corporation supplies your broadband.

Oh no no no. You can't possibly for one second even suggest it might partially be the fault of one single member of the angelic Liverpool fans. It's all the police init... Its the authorities init..... It's the government innit.... We all know how this is going to play out in the media, twitterati, talk shows, point scoring MPs and sensationalist newspapers.

Hardly. It's just a massive crowdfunding campaign for a open community run social media app which supposedly us plebs can somehow make money off without dealing with "the man". I see a few gushing high-profile celebrity endorsements including multi-millionaire footballers, musicians and a female TV sports presenter. Lots of buzzwords about reclaiming power and real change and the social media revolution according to its advertising guff. Incidentally, all currently operated by some 'ordinary woman of the people' who just happened to spend years building up her communications tech companies to an estimated net worth up to $5 million advising Mom and Pop business such as News Corp, Google, CBS, Time Warner, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse. I will be very very sceptical on just who exactly it's pulling the levers behind it's glamorous looking, buzzword filled, celebrity endorsed front end. Who exactly is building their own nest from all these £10 little Investments from "the people". At worst it's a gimmick, at best it's a glorified version of slacktivism. Tick tock... tick tock before said entrepreneur gets some offer she can't refuse and boom, it will be sod the community, sod the investors, and before you know it will just become one of the many many data mining social media platforms Certainly not one for me but I can only speak my own opinion..... Weare8.com

Yeah. Liverpool fans continue their streak. Always seem to miraculously be the ones involved whenever there is crowd control issues or unauthorised presence or dodgy tickets or general disruption involving football. I'm sure as usual they will maximise playing victim and blame everyone else despite reported tens of thousands of them being there with absolutely no legitimate reason nor valid tickets for entry. Of course it doesn't mean that the authorities are necessarily entirely blameless either. However, before all those genuinely aggrieved ticket holders start with the woe is me finger pointing, why isn't their first targeted complaint directed firmly own fellow moronic fans who didn't have any tickets but still rocked up. Ring any bells? It certainly does for me.

I don't have any motive or agenda. Nor am i filled with misogyny and racism as some people seem to think. I'm free to have an opinion just as much as anyone else. I dont like her. I didn't like her from the moment she emerged on the scene. I am not talking about all women. I am not talking about all people who are non white. In my opinion She (i.e. Megan) is a low rent low level actress who bagged herself a Royal, immediately behaved like a spoilt diva, clearly tried to embarrass and attack our long-standing institution and who now trots around being a wannabe Saint building vast amounts of wealth, influence and contacts to worm her way into politics. I have no support for any of her family one way or another. They all seem troubled, loaded with baggage and all seem to have at least a certain level of toxicity everytime they open their mouths. As for her husband, we always knew Harry was the flaky one just like his mother. Another fantastic manipulator of the press whenever it suits then instantly turn on the water works as soon as they dare to challenge back. Quite frankly I'd be delighted if the pair of them just disappear off into to obscurity as they both claim to want. But of course we all know that will never happen because it's their PR that keeps them in the money. She's certainly not going to be getting some blockbuster Hollywood role anytime soon and I doubt very much that Harry Windsor is going to have a comfortable fit finding a career in the fickle world of Los Angeles. Whether people agree with the concept or not, the institution of monarchy and those senior-level participants have a duty. They do of course have a life of extreme luxury, privilege and influence, however that comes with a lifetime of service. Trivial it may seem to many but there is equally just as many who take it very seriously and see it as a great honour when any part of our royalty influences their lives. People can't deny that when that particular Circus comes to town the world watches. Just as the world will be watching with all focus on this tiny speck of a country next week. Miss Markle and her ginger lap dog could have been at the heart of that - however they clearly thought they were somehow better than and bigger than "the firm". Clearly tried to have their cake and eat it... Take the title and influence but do none of the duty. Worse, they went one further and sought to make money off it like some smart price facsimile brand to anyone who offered the highest bid. Why shouldn't they be criticised and challenged and attacked.

Because if she had, her vast PR team and her even more vast ego would make damn sure it was splashed across every newspaper, magazine and presswire. Little Miss MeAgain certainly would never do anything in private, despite their protesting the contrary.

I think you need to read your own opening Post again. You are not banned from taking photographs of your own kids. You just can't take photographs of anyone else's kids nor the wider group because there is no permission to do so from their parents. Hardly an outrageous and unreasonable position. Times have changed. Technology has evolved. Its absolutely right that parents should have a choice about whether images of their children are being taken and distributed and uploaded onto the public web without their consent or control. It's not stressful occasion at all. Very simple rules to be followed. You only seem to making it stressful by becoming angry and outraged about something which is in fact more than reasonable.

Where are you getting your stats from? I really do feel you need to look beyond the headlines sometimes and get full context. Just because the Guardian make some dramatic story out of something doesn't mean applies to everything. Whilst there are of course outliers and the headline grabbers particularly in globalised conglomerates earning billions in revenue, the reality is statistics show the average CEO salary in the UK is around £80,000-£120,000. Not every company is some globalised FTSE 100 conglomerate Anna. Not every CEO with great responsibilities and hundreds of staff works for some evil profit-making corporation. There are plenty in government departments, social services, Healthcare are and other elements of the public sector who earn nowhere near such dramatic multipliers. 40 years ago the average salary in the UK was around £6,000 and is now over £31,000 per annum - an increase of around 416%. It stands to reason the top level executive jobs will increase, at minimum the same level, if not more. There also needs to be considered the other aspects of changing society. Far more people going into university, becoming graduate-level, changes in careers away from heavy manual industrial into automation, computer skills, White Collar roles.... We had far more women entering the workplace not just doing token jobs but actually pursuing their own careers. We have have school leavers and students who are far more ambitious seeking advancement and progression which their parents generation previous wouldn't even have considered. It's all far more nuanced.

That is true, but let's not deny that the very fact you have firearms alongside tins of beans in Walmart does not exactly help the issue. Spin it all you want, guns are a lethal weapon and should be extremely controlled by their uses extremely limited to those individuals who have a genuine need for weaponry. They should not be available in any public store which clearly gets a message out there that they are not for general public use. The vast majority of the rest of the world saw the light decades ago - a fact which is plainly obvious by the statistics. There has to be a moment at some point when the tide will turn. How many more times are we going to see the same headlines splashed across the news, another mass shooting...... another school shooting..... another Lone Wolf with access to some assault rifle....... for the news organisations it's almost like stock footage. They have the stories ready to go just waiting on the shelf. Just fill in a few blanks and it's good to go to air. Anywhere else it will be a national outrage, over there it seems to be just another Tuesday. Nobody's saying banning would completely eradicate illegal gun killings, but I don't think anyone can deny that there is an obvious link that the less guns freely sloshing around the general public and in everyone's purses or rucksacks or strapped under a bed.... the less numbers of potentially stolen and illegal used weapons would be sitting there readily available to some opportunist to grab one commit a crime.