ECCOnoob

Not a smart idea given most of the the self checkouts, particularly in Asda have got camera systems. They monitor far far more than people think. IMO, a bigger factor for loose products not being as readily available is that us customers didn't want them. Even before covid the trend was shifting to high convenience, pre-prepared produce as an ever-increasing generation can't or won't cook properly. A generation who are often so detached from the origins and realities of food that if they do not see a piece of meat or vegetables in absolute perfect mint condition as they visualise to be in line with glossy magazine photographs or internet images, it's rejected and doesn't sell. Then we had another emerging consumer trend of less weekly big shopping and more daily top-up shopping. That led to changes in store format with less emphasis on the huge out of town hypermarkets and more on local smaller branches being opened up in town centre or residential areas. Smaller branches, smallest floor space, easier distribution to use pre-packaged. Finally we have to think about the massive rise of online grocery delivery and robotic centralised operations like Ocado. When you take the human element out of the equation, it is simply not feasible to be dealing with loose individually picked vegetables and goods. I am not saying that supermarket wastage is not an important issue, but we cannot overlook other surrounding factors many of which we consumers create ourselves. Let's just think about how so many of us seem more than happy to pay twice the cost to get something delivered on a food ordering app rather than home cooking or at the very least walking to some local establishment. We are more than happy to clog up the streets with petrol guzzling cars just to get our Fried Chicken delivered from the shop a 10-minute walk down the street. We have even recently created a seemingly viable business (to the point where it can afford television advertising), which will deliver single items of low value snacks, drinks or confectionery to your door at great financial and environmental impact when compared to simply getting off one's backside and walking down to the local Co-op. Yes of course, there are always exceptions for elderly and mobility but I highly doubt that Doris is her 90s is getting a can of coke and bag of Doritos delivered through a smartphone app. Nor will she likely be the sort of person who will freak out at seeing a little bit of of bruising on some meat or the concept of peeling a potato - So it's clear who is going to be using these services quite happily whilst presumably at the same time also more than happy to do a bit of slacktivism online petitioning or placard waving about "the government" or "greedy corporations" not doing anything about the environment...... quite laughable really.

That is a fair point. Also crossed with some of the buzzwords in my own post. Power.... dominance.... possession.... Any of those words could easily be applied to the cults of religion. Control and coercion of the weaker populace into following or emulating the rulings and so-called teachings of some supreme all powerful controlling being based on fairy tales. Yes, I have no hesitation in saying that all that lot and their ridiculously influential and wealthy preachers can get straight in the bin as well.

Oh well that's alright then.... they only invaded a little bit. So if someone comes along and stabs you, it's all OK as long it's just a little flesh wound right?? If someone smashes into your property to rob it's alright if they only take from one room and leave the rest?? You are being accused of trolling because you are.

For exactly the same reason human beings can't or any other animal species. Power, dominance, possession, self survival.... it's just inbuilt.

England was ruled by the French and Vikings for many years. Does not mean we are going to suddenly lie back and take it if France or Norway suddenly invaded tomorrow and took control. What they WERE and what they ARE now are very different. They fought for their independence and why should they or their allies give in to bullying behaviour from Putin. Imagine the sort of message that would give to other similar tyrants on this planet. The days of invading and pillaging being accepted are long gone.

I thought that was supposed to be one of the campaigns by the taxpayers' alliance, until their own expenditure and funding was called into question and quelle surprise they went all quiet about it. All well and good suggestion about some partisan committee, but what exactly do these 'ordinary mortals' know about parliamentary operations and constituency operations in order to make informed judgement. Why would they be any different to the authorities already in charge of it now. How much exactly will they want paying for their services as I doubt they're going to do it for free... Of course we all know about the headline grabbing selections of outrageous expenses but ultimately MPs and their offices cost money. It has to be paid for somehow and any business operation there is always going to be expenses. Working for a large multinational firm, I dread to think what my company travel and accommodation costs are per year. Even in my own department of 40 + staff pre pandemic at least a quarter of the team would usually be elsewhere requiring cost of train tickets and/or hotels every single week. So quickly it all adds up and simply headlining the the cumulative total to generate shock horror reactions is pretty disingenuous. Nobody can ever comment with any real sense of authority until they have full context about what exactly these three MPs expenses break down to. Until that happens, all that gets created is faux outrage with no facts.

The bloke has covid not cancer. She's not his wet nurse. In any event, their means are hardly limited given their respective backgrounds and as I said earlier, through their careers and influence they have access to help and support that other people would only dream of. He's a politico has been, lobbyist, pot stirrer and author with a side line in occasional psychotherapy, providing he does it to private practice or the odd paid for accedemic commentary article of course. She is a lightweight journalist and TV presenter who on last reports got a salary from her ITV presenting work alone of well over half a million-pounds, plus a few extra side lines incomes from articles, interviews or promotions. Forgive me for not showing too much sympathy on someone who continues to milk her husband's illness and sell public outpourings of emotion to the highest bidder. One wonders if this was say, Boris and Carrie whether you would be showing just as much sympathy.....

Yeah yeah... just as much as we need to reverse the other 'wierd psychology' amongst some of the more deluded members of the population who think they can demand all and anything they want - when they want it - without any consequences because magical fairies create it all and it's paid for by pixie dust. It's the same ones who think it's always somebody else's responsibility to pay for their lifestyles. Always someone else's responsibility to pay for their neglect and abuse of their own health. Always someone else's responsibility to pick up the pieces when they irresponsibly breed a child without stable relationship or appropriate means ..... The same ones who think the the solution to any problem is simply "tax the rich" or "blame the bankers". It's not a simple as just dismissing sceptics as people treating good things "as bad". It is far far more nuanced than that with much consideration of how exactly all those good things can realistically and practically be implemented. Take public transport for example, there are 1000 and 1 definitions of what is deemed good service and the basic principle that the more service provided = more expenditure to run it. So where is the balance that needs to be applied? Who picks up the surplus to cover if there is unreasonable discounting of fares? Sceptics are more than entitled to be sceptical and realists are more than entitled to slap some hard dose of reality if and when other factions start bordering on pipedreams, excess and delusion.

Since when exactly does the Home Secretary conduct investigations and prosecute? The CPS and attorney-general might have something to say about that. I think we all know the outcome when any suspicions about government influence on PACE or judicial process arises. The newspapers and appeal courts would be all over it like a rash. It was not an attack on labour. It was a below the belt jibe during heated argument between the leaders. Starmer was throwing mud and Boris threw some back. Both examples whichever side you are on displayed failures of leadership followed public apologies. Both examples whichever side you are on displayed personal attacks on the leader rather than the real issue of far deeper failures within both organisations. Both examples whichever side you are on displayed elements of hypocritical behaviour. Both examples whichever side you are on demonstrate clearly why this constant adversarial position and over simplistic tribal support for party colours is in no-one's benefit. Probably about as much as any other politician. Is the policies you sell and the personality of delivery that wins votes.

I think worse than the hosts is the fact that every remake of a game show these days, particularly on ITV, has to involve the word 'celebrity'. It's no longer seems to be about ordinary people winning money or prizes, it seems to be more about raising the profile of that bird from that docusoap 10 years ago or plugging some album from some has been crooner from the 80s whose run out of money. I saw online earlier this week that the proposed remake of Stars in Their Eyes now appears to be coming with some celeb filled judging panel. Why? The originals never did. It is not the X Factor where they are going to win some recording contract, I just don't get it. ITV again pushing and pushing that lowest common denominator - If your name is not down on their ever decreasing list of approved "faces" you ain't getting in.

Could not agree more. Yes Captain Tom did a very nice charitable thing but it should have been nothing more than a feel good filler at the end of a news bulletin. However as per usual, the PR machine starts wirring and the gullible twitterati start going all gaga about it......putting him on a pedestal, declaring him as a national hero, portraying him as some beacon of hope .... it was embarrassing. About time someone cuts the crap and has the balls to tell his daughter that her time in the spotlight is well and truly over. As for Kate Garraway, whilst I of course sympathise with anyone losing a loved one, particularly high-profile who has to go through the motions publicly.... But lots of people up and down the country lose their loved ones and they don't have the support of celebrity consolers, PR gurus, wardrobe and make-up assistants, drivers, runners.... Nor do the majority of those people have a luxury and privilege of being able to put a sellable value on ghoulish photographs of ones ill spouse and open bidding for shows of emotional distress in return for a nice fat newspaper cheque. Seems that the story has well and truly run its course and is bordering on manipulation and financial gain in my opinion.

Good grief, that's the sort of comment I would expect to see in the Daily Mail. As for your comparators with wartime you are completely inaccurate. We relied upon on the the manpower and resources from our allies in countries all over the world. Even more so after wartime when we required vast amounts of help to get back on our feet. We have always been a nation of imports. Even back in the dark days when we ruled with an 'empire' we still relied on raping and pillaging and stealing of land and finite resources from other nations which we would not have done ourselves. Our Industries may have once been revolutionary but they never evolved. We were soon quickly overtaken by emerging and developing nations, with a far more leaner, keener and efficient workforce producing 5x the output while ours were plodding along, on strike or on yet another tea break. At a time when men were being landed on the moon, we were still propping up a crumbling railway network of steam trains. At a time when France and the Far East had a well-developed nuclear fusion and a network of power stations, we were still chucking out tons and tons of coal costing the taxpayers billions in losses a year. Regardless,we are now completely globalised both economically and politically. We may be leaving the EU but not Europe. We communicate across the other side of the planet instantly. We work with colleagues in multiple different time zones. We sit in offices or factories in the Far East, making products designed by people in North America and being paid by accountants based in London. We're not even a proper island anymore. A couple of hours train ride under the sea and you're straight into continental Europe without getting your feet wet. Perhaps we should have invested more in our energy sector, other places around the world have, but I doubt for one second that remaining state controlled would give one jot of change the situation. In a country where morons in the unions are still whining and crying about 'evil thatcher' closing the coal mines and there are still politicians who even today are demanding that heavy mass nationalised industry of long outdated materials be reinstated, do you really think we would have self developed any sort of advanced manufacturing or green energy production without the hand private enterprise..... not a chance.

Really? I think you need to be looking deeper deeper back into history. I am talking centuries back. You can't seriously be suggesting that distrust in political rulers, spin and misinformation has only developed as a result of those evil greedy bankers....

This is one of the rare post crossovers from you where I am almost in agreement. However I'm going to challenge your second paragraph, the fact is Starmer has been just as guilty as throwing around lots of slurs and accusations towards Boris. He has been quite shameless in his use of Covid victims and NHS staff to push agenda that Boris is somehow personally responsible for deaths, personally responsible for every single pressure on the NHS, personally responsible for failing to lock down hard enough but the same time personally responsible for ruining the economy by locking down too hard..... round and round it went. Neither of course was Boris personally responsible for every aspect of 'partygate' but that didn't stop Starmer demanding his head on a plate even after Boris apologised on behalf of the government and the department. Yes Boris took a very cheap shot but if starmer can apologise for his failures during leader of the dpp and move on why shouldn't the same be applicable to the Prime Minister. Star was caught having a beer, apologised and the police cleared as no law broken. Wonder what's going to happen if Boris is cleared the same way. Will it just be nicely accepted and then moved on without argument? I don't think so. Like I said before, they are all as bad as each other right now. It all far is too much heated rhetoric and blind tribal support between blue and red which is fuelled by hysterical media and ill-informed public opinions on social media. We have a barrage of toxic black and white positions. Constant swinging if not lurching from one extreme to the other all the time. There is very little middle ground as people are judged by what and who they support, tarred forever as being a certain "type". Constant blame culture finger pointing and nitpicking creating a toxic environment where no one is prepared to admit a failure and no one will ever learn from mistakes because of fears of been permanently tainted for the rest of their professional careers. Nevermind hear both sides of the argument. The argument can't be heard as too much shouting.

Blah blah evil corporations... Blah blah out of touch Tories.... Blah blah hate the bankers and wealthy people.... blah blah neoliberalism to blame.....

Since when? Let me just remind you of a key snippet: .....There were "failures of leadership and judgement by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times.... Institutional failure maybe but all the blame on one lone man it certainly is not. Jeez, how I long for the day when people just sit and wait for the full facts to come out instead of checking around their own warped interpretations to try and desperately prove a point. Back on the original topic, personally I feel that the remark was unjustified and caused more harm than good. But quite frankly, given the same gutter level of cheap shots, name-calling, grandstanding, insults and uncorroborated points being thrown from the other side of the house from mouth pieces like Starmer, Blackford and Rayner, I don't blame him for throwing something back. Unparliamentary conduct it may be, but everyone has a point where they snap especially when faced by continual grandiose catcalling from the opposition leader despite them seemingly doing similar activities. Perhaps the sue grey report should extend even further and right through the entire parliamentary and civil service process to see just how many incidents across all parties and all departments were taking a place. Let's not forget, the elected government is only a tiny but most visible part of the machine. Let's not forget the layers and layers of overprotected, overpaid, over unionised pen pushers who don't have to face daily public opinion and newspaper scrutiny.

Because like all these programmes the voting public only care about keeping who is the most entertaining or has the biggest personality not interested in technically competent or skillful. Let's not forget, this is ultimately a light entertainment show on one of the most populist dumbed down networks. It is not to be viewed as any serious judgement of talent or skill on the ice. Anyone with any genuine interest in the art of ice skating performance will be repelled by such programs just the same as anyone with any genuine musical or singing talent will be repulsed by the the one hit, gaudy, artificial populist acts that spew out of the X Factor type regimes.

I don't disagree with the first two. There's clearly been a lack of supervision by allowing the child free access to the internet and sign herself up to a dating site, meet up people and clearly shag around in multiple locations. However I do have to question why blame is pushed on the state?

It certainly suggests the girl was a complete liar who was deliberately trying to portray herself as older. It also suggests that she was willing to entrap and mislead someone by deliberately sign up to a dating website which explicitly states that is to be used only by those 18 years of age and above.

Not necessarily. I do query the convenient time to broadcast such a program. However I don't think the BBC is biased one way or another. They are a broadcaster and like all media organisations they only care about what is best for their business. They put out what they know is best to attract viewers or listeners.

With the exception of the last line I agree with that. There does have to be a balance and it is a very difficult position to judge. It is something that takes some great skill and cooperation from all sides to achieve. That goes well beyond the simplistic, meaningless and far too often used soundbites like "tax the rich" or "blame the bankers" or "people before profit" bandied about by point scoring politicians and moronic protest groups.

What makes you so certain the programme has any information which people don't already know. Rich people = bad. Corporations = evil. ....Heard it all before Anna. Pound to a penny it's was same hysterical talking heads, opinions and over dramatised guff that's been talked about, documented and reported on many times before. Businesses making obscene profits. Human beings looking after number one and getting one over their rivals. Rich people v poor people....... Circumstances that existed from year dot. Shock horror. I chose not to watch either. This is not a new subject that I feel needed to be regurgitated about. Emotive television with a nicely timed scheduling just as the supposedly evil Tories and controversial leader are facing attack.

Actually there have been academic studies on that point with prove that they can be. Facial recognition technology defaults to identify one type of skin tone. Its a fair question to raise whether manufacturers and designers should be thinking about that. If they are not or refusing to.....well. Yep. It is inbuilt in their design. It's for that same reason why they produce ads which are ridiculously OTT artistic, comedic gags or dramatic without barely mentioning or showing the product they are meaning to advertise. They simply don't need to, it gets people talking, it goes viral on the internet and their logo/brand suddenly reaches eyeballs that a fixed slot in a commercial break on some tv network could only dream of. Let's face it, how ridiculous have things become that the annual John Lewis and Aldi xmas adverts attract international press coverage. People sit and wait for the premiere of an advert. All those who say adverts doesn't influence them, doesn't affect them, they don't watch etc...... yes they do, they just don't realise it.

Parents should teach them then. Basic mandatory education is one thing but do schools really have to be expected to teach every single basic life skill now. In times of change, the demands on schools have hugely increased, the numbers of pupils have gone up, the special needs and other support requirement have changed, the necessary curriculum and skills required for the evolving workplace has changed... Personally I think there should be far better things that's school resource be spent on than swimming. Oh no, of course, silly me, that involves responsibility for one's own children. That simply won't do this day and age.

Perhaps, but given that they closed down the shiny new Birmingham store which was only built and opened in 2015 and there even newer York store which was built on an out of town Retail Park, as part of their closure programme there would be no guarantee of that.