ECCOnoob

What did absolutely moronic take on things. Cars are designed for transportation purposes they are not inherently designed for the sole purpose of killing a living thing. A car would also not be able to get inside a building, into classrooms and fatally run over people from a distance. What exactly is a gun designed for? It is a weapon. Simple as that. Are you going to seriously suggest that the 'killing' aspects of a gun is somehow it's secondary purpose.

Now that I would agree with. Perhaps it's about time the spotlight got shone a little bit more locally to find out exactly what our leaders are doing and where the money is going. Assuming those figures are extracted from the source list you quote, That's 37 million of money to be used wisely. The city could have been doing awful lot with that. Be very interested to see how it breaks down and how much was being frittered away on councillor vanity projects and failed showboating. Constantly whining and criticising about central government is all well and good but at some point someone's going to turn around and ask quite bluntly.... "what exactly have you been doing".

To be frank, it doesn't look overly horrendous. I've seen just as bad traffic queuing along primary routes in Sheffield which has less than 10% of the population numbers. I'm really not sure what your point is. All cities are prioritising pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. They've been doing it for nearly 40 years. I am no econmentalist but even I know that something has to be done with our ever increasing dominance of car. It is simply not sustainable. Something has to be done and the key for all local authorities is getting the right balance, something which often fails to be met. As has been shown in our own city, it's either all too heavy one way or the other. However, whilst I don't agree to every single traffic reducing measure, neither am I going to blindly accept that all Motorists are absolutely vitally dependant on their cars nor that complete freedom to do what they want is a feasible option either. Directly knowing people in the the proper wilds of Canada I understand that certain areas have specific needs and will always require personal transportation. It is obvious that in places outside of big cities with vast swathes of nothing in between and temperatures reaching -15 -20, -30 degrees a car/truck is an absolute necessity. However, even in the extremist of weathers you're not telling me that every single citizen in the Greater Toronto Area has a desperate and absolute need to keep hold of their cars. You are not telling me that every single element of their well integrated public transport system grinds to a halt for several months of the year with no alternatives.

Not exclusively. I've just made a mental note never to shake your hand.

Not quite, its skin-to-skin contact and from saliva droplets often found on infected linen or clothing. Certainly not covid lockdown levels but anyone with half a brain will still be sensible. As there are still plenty out there screaming about how the government "failed to do enough" ... "failed to act quickly enough"... "failed to be proactive" about Covid we can hardly blame them for taking a proactive and cautious approach now. As we all these things, people need to look beyond the hysteria and headline grabbing and just read to get the facts.

That is very true. I'm sure some will reminisce about it all being so lovely with rose tinted nostalgia but god how miserable was it back then. Pubs forced to close in the middle of the day. Every shop and supermarket closed by around 6 or 7pm. The only thing you could do on a Sunday was go to church, a garden centre or some car boot because all the shops and restaurants were shut. Hardly anywhere available to get something to eat after around 9 p.m. in the week because there was no 24hr restaurants or fast food beyond some usually closed chip shop. Seasonal operations in coastal towns where the whole area will be dead and desolate for half the year..... Lets also try and get back on topic and think about the extra employment opportunities which came from such shifts in society and the introduction of 24/7 operations.

Because the world moves on. The way people live socialise and work changes. The birth of the internet gave us a generation of people expecting instant everything whenever they want it. The world of business and commerce has become globalised where people are working across time zones or running operations across multiple jurisdictions. We are a secular society where vast amounts of the population don't want nor choose to follow the same calendars, timings or traditional religious scheduling. Not a bad thing in my opinion.

Why is it? Times change. Sunday's are no longer 'the day of rest' just because a load of believers in a mythical sky being say it is. We are no longer in a world of factories and manufacturers mandatory being shut down at a certain time each day each week. Lots of job roles up and down the land have been working weekends as part of their normal duties for decades. Even the working world for the so-called White Collar office jobs is morphing into flexible, agile working which goes well beyond simply 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. As far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm only working my contracted 5 days out of 7 I don't really care what day of the week it is. Now if only we can abolish the stupid outdated Sunday trading nonsense.....

I'm sure it is, but if you look beyond the snappy headline and the hysterical instant outrage, you will see that the minister was actually talking about long-term needs of protection and building back a stable economy to enable people to take on more hours or find alternative job roles. It's talking about making sure government policies give relevant opportunities for people seeking work, keeping in work or seeking advancement to better themselves into higher paid roles. Something I'm sure, if we actually took a step back and thought about it, we would all agree on.....including the opposition. But as per usual, the full context is ignored, the message gets completely twisted and distorted by the manipulating media, twitterati and overreactors and all people get to hear about is the drama and outrage from what they've said.

On what grounds though? That is where the difficulty arises. What elements was absolutely provable categorically individual failure vs corporate responsibility, firmwide culture, managerial protocols, lack of training lack of supervision etc etc. The point is, although we'd all like to see it, it isn't that easy and if you apply such sanctions to one element you'd have to apply them fairly across all other elements otherwise the other side will be kicking off, that then creates the sort of culture of fear with employees scared to make any mistake whatsoever for fear of reprisal as I alluded to earlier.

Because ultimately, liability action is brought against the company or organisation concerned not the individual employee. Despite all the protest to the contrary, employee rights are in the main still very strong. Institutional failure is a broad brush and it is very rare something is found to be directly at the fault of an individual without the employers also being tarred with alleged failures. Even if it does miraculously all get pinned on one individual, employee rights again mean that there is little an employer can do other than discipline or dismissal. With exception of things like criminal activity it is extremely rare an employer would have grounds to pursue an employee for recoupment of any compensation award paid out to a victim. I get the point you are trying to make, particularly when it is government money, but be careful what you wish for. Would you really want a circumstance where every time you go to work you're terrified that if you make a mistake your employer can turn around and hold you personally and financially responsible for all redress. Would be a very slippery slope.

What has that got to do with anything? Lots of people have been through the agony of losing their lives to bowel cancer. They don't all get media coverage and fan mail. The world still revolves and I don't see the link. There are tens of thousands of civil dispute cases going through the court system. Day after day of people seeking money from another person for negligence or contract breaches or work or land disputes or petty debts or neighbour squabbles or libel. Should they all suddenly stop and donate their money to charity because you don't deem the cases "worthy"? It may well seem 'trivial' to an outsider but as far as I'm concerned it should be nobody else's business but the parties involved and the court. I highly suspect the losing side will be ordered to pay the winning party's legal fees. You are right though, I can say from experience the lawyers always win 😉 To be fair I think there's a bit of a difference between a falling out and someone being publicly liabeled in the newspapers.

Bloody hell. Your posts make Eeyore look like a motivational speaker. Get a grip. Stop blaming all of the world's changes and problems on the introduction of Margaret Thatcher into office. Have a proper look back at history and see how things are constantly changing and evolving. They've been doing it for centuries. There have always been the rich and the poor. There have always been the landlords and the tenants. There have always been the bosses and the workers. There has always been the first world countries and the third world countries. There have always been competition, bartering, tendring and global conflict. It is not some post 1980s phenomenon. Free market economics my backside. It's life Anna. We are all open make our own way in this world. Plenty get leg up but just as many throw it all away. Plenty are born with nothing but just as many rise above it, elevate themselves and make a success. It's all down to us to live how we want to live.

Yeah yeah yeah we're all doomed and might as well end it now. You say having to use food banks I say choosing to use food banks. Just think for a second if they weren't there, just like they weren't there when my own parents were very poor and having to struggle to survive keeping the house going with four kids..... would all these food bank 'dependants' suddenly die of starvation or would they miraculously manage to find enough money to afford basic groceries each week. Personally, for all the money spent on food banks, I would much rather see invested into proper education of money management including realistic and if necessary blunt lessons in what genuinely constitutes essential items and poverty. IMO should also include real-world examples and advice on avoiding constant peer pressure and one upmanship regarding consumer goods and affordability. As for jobs, we have been here before. Oh how they screamed the steam engine was going to to kill off the traditional trades and no one would survive..... the typewriter was going to condemn all those clerks and scribes.... the computer was going to destroy workforces with the microchip replacing thousands of employees...... automation and robotics were going to take over the world and leave us with nothing..... Somehow we are all still here. We irritatingly just seem to keep evolving and adapting and changing as world progresses. It's almost like all hysteria and theatrics and outrage from the doommongers is totally inaccurate. You talked about the mass advancements in technology but let's get some reality check here. For all the wonderful developments in automation and self-driving and self navigation and artificial intelligence what do we have on the ground which people will actually embrace and trust and is commercially viable. There is a huge yawning gap between the two. At a time when we are bringing legislation for self-driving cars, we are still running diesel boneshaker trains on our railways, we are still having bully boy trade unions kicking up a stink and going on strike because they object to a driver pressing a button to automatically close train doors. 40 years ago we could reach across the Atlantic is under 4 hours, however a couple of accidents and a huge hurdle in real commercial viability and we are back to a minimum of 8 hours. The bringing of the dial put thousands of telephone operators out of work, but somehow they all found different jobs with whole industry fpimg a revolution from switchrooms to massive call centres. Different task but another example of the evolution of work. You have complained several times on this very forum regarding how precious nurse and caring staff are too busy filling in spreadsheets computerised information but I am very sure you'd not seriously expect them to go back to the dark days of reams of manual paper methods or would you like the precious NHS budget to be spent on personal secretaries running around doing the data input for the nurses as they go around patients. It's strange that you seem to have such objections to traditions and pageantry and historical preservation but at the same time giving a load of doomsday scenario regarding the constant progression and evolution of the way people work and live.

Because like any high profile individual or corporation they are subject to constant unregulated maulings in the court of public opinion and the pot sirring press. His lawyers have very sensibly considered the costs of buying off the money grabbing attention seeker against the substantial costs of a lengthy trial defence open to constant uncorroborated public opinion, finger pointing, media manipulation. It's called commercial settlement and it happens all the time. You think what you want. But the basic fact is he was not found "guilty" of anything. It was not a criminal trial. It was for civil damages. No guilt has been found because Prince Andrew made a settlement with no admissions of any liability.... No guilt has been found because the so-called victim chose to take the money rather than producing a single piece of evidence of her supposed abuse before a court of law. It was all about the money and she ultimately got she wanted - another nice big fat payout. Tick tock before she finds another high-profile victim to go against. I am sure you have no doubt in your opinion what you feel Prince Andrew is. On the flip side I have no doubt in my opinion what I feel she is.

In a vast majority of cases I suggest homelessness is far more due to mental health illness, drug or alcohol misuse, inability to manage one's own affairs, refusal to accept assistance from the support services, abuse victims or illegal immigrants. I would like to see the stats of those who are genuinely Street Homeless simply because their job or benefits does not afford them a place to live. I don't go for some simplistic position that homeless = skint. There is far more to it.

Well I think that says far more about you. You clearly have very expensive or snobbish tastes. A few seconds search on Rightmove and I found over 1000 properties for sale under 200k including very popular areas such as Walkley, Woodseats, Hillsborough, Chapeltown, Abbeydale, Totley, Kelham Island and dozens of city centre apartments. Even in your own area, whilst I agree there is limited big cities which is always going to have an impact on the available housing market and jobs, a rough and ready search around West Somerset still located nearly 250 properties for sale under £200k. Assuming also like many young people living out "in the sticks" many will ultimately travel elsewhere for work or study or upon graduation settle down in bigger more populous areas. Such trends have been happening for years.

You easily state "how ridiculous" as some throwaway line but what exactly does that break down to. Where exactly are the detailed figures which we can all make comparisons against. Anyone can get the headline amount and react to it. Plenty do that with the NHS and their own 'obscene" budget but im sure you would counter is never enough. After all, it certainly appears that looking after a prisoner is a lot less than respite care or nursing homes charge per week. Maybe it's those greedy overcharging divisions in the NHS, Councils and care home providers who are the 'ridiculous' ones. Makes prisons or private prison operators look like a bit of a bargain in comparison So the stats say the average incarcerated costed £45k a year which breaks down to about £124 pounds a day. Now obviously accounting for the fact that some prisoners will require more needs and expenditure over others such as high security or special needs, just how much excessive and unreasonable is that average working out at. It is not right to compare it to the average living expenditure of the man in the street nor fairly comparable to a nights accommodation in a hotel. We are looking at 24/7 enhanced security patrol's, guards, cameras, controlled door systems and access points, barriers and fences, secured transport.... which require dozens or hundreds of staff, operations controls and management. What about all the other services a prison has to provide. Medical teams, education services, workshops, counselling services, chaplaincy, legal services, maintenance, laundry, cleaning, equipment and supplies. Each prisoner has to be fed and watered 3 times a day and that's not going to be popping down to the supermarket and making their own dinner. It requires a team of cooks whom also have extra responsibilities of keeping tabs on any prison labour also working the kitchens. Seems to be another no-win situation. One minute people screaming lock them up and throw away the key...... the next minute people are screaming about the 'outrageous' cost of keeping a prisoner for X years. I am a little curious, If it was a banker or politician who was busted for hiding assets, tax evasion and committing fraud people on here would be demanding they be strung up. Yet a popular former sportsman and celebrity does it, and suddenly the mood from some is all sympathy and let him repay his debt by giving to the community..... what a fickle nation we are.

Where exactly do you live? I don't believe that every single property is 200k plus. Even in the heart of central London, ordinary workers on modest salaries still manage to find somewhere to live. It might not be right in the heart... it might not be a three bedroom detached with Garden at the back. However, it will certainly be sufficiently habitable and a reasonable commute away. Everyone has to cut their cloth appropriately. It's no different to any other big city in the country. Heart of town, extremely popular areas = high price tag. The outskirts and lesser popular areas = lower price tag. It's hardly a new concept. Unless you are one of the lucky privileged few, everyone starting out on the property market has to buy what they can afford and work up. Nobody's owed a property in the best areas just like that. It's strange, you seem almost resentful that you're asset investment in property has gone up over the years. Surely wouldn't want it to simply stagnate and stay the same value. You could choose to benefit from that profit right now. You could sell up and buy down elsewhere cheaper and then use the surplus money for something else. Instead you seem to be choosing to leave it as benefit for your children who in turn will then get their own very good boost on the property market ladder. That is still a benefit from that profit you made. I don't see what's so 'wrong' about it. If you really want to level the playing field sell up, donate to the community and leave them nothing.

Yes it could buy you a London apartment, but as I said earlier it could equally by someone a 6-7 bedroom home a short tube ride out of town. Depending how extravagant one wants to be, a million-pound used carefully and invested wisely could let someone live modestly comfortably without the burden of work for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, if someone's wants to blow it all on trinkets and luxuries that's their choice and it will soon fritter away to nothing. Like everything, it may not be necessarily as 'valuable' as in the past, but let's not be silly and pretend a million-pound is still not a potentially life-changing amount of money.

Well I'm sure she knows all about making unpleasant, intimidating and derogatory remarks when she was mouthing off calling people scum. Didn't seem to bother her too much when she was dishing it out on other people, now the media attacks her it's play the victim. Corbyn syndrome all over again. Stir it up and manipulate the media whenever it suits but when the tables get turned it's all woe is me. Just what exactly does she want. It was a newspaper article from a well-infamous publication for pot stirring, uncorroborated opinion and speculation. Dozens of her fellow MPs from both sides of the house have condemned the article. Even the prime minister has criticised the article. The Speaker of the House is taking action calling out the editor of the newspaper. She herself can choose to take action against the newspaper. For goodness sake. Time to toughen up and move on. It's nothing more than chip wrapper now. The quicker she stops drawing attention to it the quicker the Twitterati will find something else to gossip about. As others have said, she is certainly not the first or only female MP to get Media articles criticising her looks or mocking her behaviour. Nor are a vast amount of the male MPs immune from such similar barbs on a regular basis. We have all seen the photographs, captions, memes and satire over Boris and his scarecrow haircut, those infamous jogging shorts, the jokes regarding his sleeping around and supposed illegitimate children piled up everywhere. We have seen the Jacob rees-mogg Dracula comparisons and the barbs regarding his Victorian outfit styles. We remember the Tony Blair sweat patches, John Prescott fat jokes.... Rightly or wrongly it is the price that you pay when you have any sort of high-profile public role. She's not special or unique in such circumstance.

Easiest way to do that is just a spoil your ballot. They have to be counted and the numbers are recorded. They even have to be inspected by all the candidates to make sure there is not one choice preference being over another. If you write X candidate is a smelly bum head or draw a male member next to the box for your chosen and member of Parliament.....that has to be inspected by all the candidates and return officers. I know people who have been doing that for years. What better way for them to really see what people think of them if they are that passionate. As with all these elections, the only thing I pray is that people stop thinking in simplistic tribal blue and red. Remember what exactly we are voting for here. What that candidate is supposed to be representing. This is not a vote for a prime minister. This is not a vote for government. It is supposed to be about our local candidates and picking who we feel will do the best job to represent us on our own specific local community issues. The fact that I hear so many people talking about local mayoral elections in the same sentence as things like Ukrainian war response, NHS funding and Brexit just blows my mind. Just shows the deep rooted one-track tribal thinking across the electorate time and time again.

^^^^^^^^ But if you admit you were not looking at what businesses are around how did you reasonably come to the above criticism and opinion? It goes back to what I said earlier, people are free to criticise and comment on the lackings of the city but, in my opinion they should at least have a real indication of what's actually there before they do so. I think we are all guilty of not properly exploring our own backyard. We become too accustomed to it and only focus on our favourite bits, or more often than not, see nothing but the bad bits, ignoring everything else. Just to look at any of a local rags up and down the country and it's the same comments and criticisms and whinging no matter what city or town people seem to live in.

Fair enough. But if you really couldn't find anything whatsoever that interests you for clothing purchases out of a broad list of stores ranging from budget Primark, mid-range M&S or Atkinsons through to boutique designer shops like Sa-kis...... I really can't think of many cities that could provide for your taste. Each to their own I suppose.

No I didn't mention department stores because you are quite right we only have one traditionally deemed department store and that's Atkinsons. But is that such a surprise given department store companies are going bust all over the world. The ones that are surviving are severely reducing their store count or they are the selective/exclusive/premium ones which offer an entirely different type of shopping experience to be fairly compared to something like your average Debenhams. Let's be very blunt here, For all the people who have fantasy pipedreams and protest they are just longing for a Harvey Nichols or Selfridges or Fortnum's to come to Sheffield it isn't going to happen. These companies aren't stupid. They know their market and they know where their regular trade is. It isn't in a city like ours. Good grief there are independent coffee shops where us locals baulk at the price. I really don't see a regular passing trade of local customers popping in Harveys to pick up £70 eyeliner, a £900 Hermes scarf and having their £65 set lunch menu several times a month. Back on topic, I don't know how often you come down into the city centre but it does concern me when people make criticisms and comments similar to yours about how there is seeming "nothing there" and yet are blindingly unaware to what there actually is.