ECCOnoob

What if that's the case, presumably like myself she will be well experienced in the realities of traveling on business. It will therefore hardly be an unreasonable expectation that one will not get chaperoned directly from door-to-door in any sort of city centre setting. I suspect that not all of those 250 venues she oversees are conveniently perfectly placed alongside a main road where they can just park up, hop out and get inside Like I said earlier, seems to me like a bit of a lame excuse for some Sheffield City Centre bashing. P.s. as a bit of future reference if you would have come around the the main ring road up and over Rockingham St and onto Calver St you will have been able to temporary stop on Division Street in any event. Maybe your route planner needs a bit of an upgrade.

Birmingham lost their branch quite spectacularly and it was far more prestige and newer than the one in Sheffield. The shiny new Leeds one certainly wasnt thriving last time I saw it, neither in fact was their flagship Oxford Street store when I was down there the other month. There are still plenty of shops in our city centre and unless you have been walking around blind for the past couple of years you will also notice a massive amount of development and investment that is currently ongoing. There is more to a city than just shops. Now back on topic about the supposed impossible road system which thousands and thousands of drivers manage perfectly well everyday.

Turn right at the end of Arundel Gate, round to charter Square first right and there is a huge car park within a 1-minute walk from Division Street. Alternatively, you could follow the main arterial road up from West bar, turn left onto Rockingham Street, cross over West Street and park up anywhere which again will be a 1-minute walk onto Division Street. Further alternative you could simply enter charter row from the main roundabout, first left to Eldon Street and pull up anywhere which again will be a 1 minute walk onto Division Street. Talk about making a drama out of nothing. Just looks like another pathetic excuse to do a bit of slagging off of the city centre.

Could not agree more. Pets are not cuddly toys that can be played with and shoved back in a cupboard. Despite the perceived notion that all of the population loves their cats and dogs facts is many don't. I've had to have the same debate in several workplace well-being discussions whenever the idea of some office mascot dog has been raised. I'm sure it would entertain and delight for a few minutes but then what happens 6-weeks, 6-months, 6 years later when the novelties have worn off and everyone's fed up with having to clean up after, walk twice a day, feed and care for. Pets, dogs particularly have real feelings and emotional bond. There needs to be thought about how the animal is going to deal with being passed around in a care home full of different people constantly coming in and out, the change of personnel, the change of it's companionship when inevitably residents keep dying. They can feel distresed just as much as anyone else when someone or something they are bonded with is gone.

I'd like to know what sort of ludicrous definitions are being applied that puts a quarter of the entire UK population in so called "poverty". Just what exactly are we looking at here when potentially a full-time worker on minimum net wage over £1,200 a month and with the support of things such as free universal Healthcare, free education, mandatory housing provision and additional state top ups is seriously declared poverty. There are literally people starving to death in African countries, people without running water, electricity, and basic medical care. In the Far East, there are literally millions of people living in shantytowns surrounded by piles of garbage, rats and disease. These are people living with basically nothing, very little furnishing or goods and many items are having to either scrounge off the streets, recycle from rubbish sites or make themselves. What really is a kicker is that on top of their extremely difficult lives, they are the people who are working for pennies a day in factories manufacturing the goods and supplies that our so-called poverty population is lapping up when they go on their shopping trips to the discount stores. That's REAL poverty and yet our so-called "poverty" are quite happy to take advantage of that cheap prices on the goods and plentiful supply being just there readilly available to them whenever they want to indulge in the consumer society. If this truely is some international initiative as the title of the day describes, just how on earth are we seriously to compare someone living in a shanty town or a mudhut on pennies a day within the same definitions of poverty as someone living in subsidised state housing, with top-up benefits, healthcare and a potential salary of up to £15,000 a year. No wonder the message keeps being lost.

Primarily because it is licensed and costs vast amounts of money. Whilst the BBC does have some long-standing agreements with the music industry there will be strict rules about when, how and in what context it can be used. Do not underestimate the ridiculous sums that broadcasters have to pay for anything that is potentially copyrighted or licensed. Even having to pay thousands of pounds to access the most innocuous pieces of stock footage or background photographs. Television is vastly complicated and expensive to make and there are some extremely good YouTube videos and documentaries about the difficulties and sheer scale of the operations behind the scenes. It is not just about chucking on some background music, letting people prance around and filming it. Also, with it being a live television show which has to be timed down to the absolute second, chances are that many of the full original tracks are simply too long or unwieldy to fit within the choreographed correct camera angles, lighting effects, graphics, visuals. Again, filming for television to make it look good to the viewer at home is vastly more complicated than performing straight in front of an audience. Oh and by the way, those "jerks" as you dismiss them are a professional Orchestra and musical director made up of several session musicians who have worked with some of the biggest artists. They are hardly some wannabes picked from their mum's garage. If you don't like the programme fine but at least have some respect for the professional musicians. It is part of the big appeal and draw to the program is having the live music element. It is a call back to it's traditional roots when it was first broadcast and is more aligned to the realities of such competitions taking place off the television.

Nurse... Nurse.... someone has allowed them internet access again. Come quick get them another tin foil hat. Christ if I had a pound for every time someone desperately brings up the word neoliberal to try to further their pointless argument I could have retired long ago.

Yes of course the relevant authorities should be and do investigate. That's their job and remit. However, the earlier poster was asking what I think about X and Y wild speculation and assumptions given without any sort of context, evidence or facts. Therefore, what I think is how the hell should I know nor why would I care. Come back to me when there is some genuine meritorious grounds for a prosecution and sufficient evidence of broken laws and I may take an interest. Until such time it's nothing more than a load of what ifs, rumours, finger pointing and gossip which quite frankly derives mostly from jealousy driven venom against the the wealthy.

1. define what is fair? I think fair is paying what the the law dictates you have two. Not a penny more. Lower earners don't get morally blackmailed or shamed by the media into paying more than they hmrc says they have to. Why should just making lots of money change that position. 2. Political pressure, hysterical Media, maintaining Public Image by saying what the people want to hear rather than giving a reality check. 3 and 4. Nothing at all since it's all speculation, uncorroborated assumptions and presently without any merit. I work in a world of facts. Come back to me when there are some actual charges and a genuine reliable case for prosecution and I might be interested.

Wow. Absolutely astounding. A load of hysterical nonsense about neoliberalism followed by an eight-year-old opinion piece from The Guardian. Couldn't be any more desperate.

Nobody has pressed any legal charges no has anybody proven in a court of law they committed any crime. In your warped world are innocent people simply deemed just people who have "got away with it"

I begin to see the potential problem with your staff retention. Is teasing and p taking as you call it it an essential part of their practical skills required to do the job? Is it formally set out in their job description that they must have a self depreciating sense of humour and must be prepared to take jokes from their boss? Is your apprenticeship containing formal training and guidance as to how they handle such so called banter? Do you understand the points being made. The relationship between employee and employer is very different these days. The expectations are very different. The responsibilities are very different.

You're potentially fell at the first hurdle as soon as you used the words "...need to accept banter..." That could constitute 1001 different meanings. Joking around, name-calling, mocking, pranking is all well and good if it is accepted that way by the recipients. If not, what it may look like is their brand new boss bullying and teasing them within the first few days. I have said on another thread, we are in a very different working world these days. The responsibilities of an employer is very different as is the attitudes and tolerance of certain types of behaviour.

To be fair, often the reason the NHS management is jumping to defence mode is because any patient complaint these days is inevitably followed by a formal lawsuit. I cannot deny that the industry I work is a contributor to that problem. There is no such thing as making a mistake these days. It is all about finding liability and compensatory awards. That goes for the employee-employer relationship too. It is not a case anymore of employee makes negligent or reckless mistake, gets disciplined and sanctioned. Now it all has to be formally investigated, checked, documented, discussed across several meetings, Union involvement, action plans, follow-up meetings and referrals for after care support and retraining. All as a result of the anticipation of said employee bringing any future legal action. It is a very different world now. It is arguable that it is better this way. However as evidenced by this case, the flip side is that potentially reckless or negligent employees drift around for years on end without any retribution. How many times do we see things like this happen where the first question is " how did they get away with it for so long without nobody doing anything..."

It's all too easy to say that but at what point does ruling the wards with an iron fist translate to intimidation, overbearing, bullying and potentially threatening behaviour to staff. How does one maintain that iron grip on the ward operations when they face staff members running and crying to the HR team or hiding behind their Union reps every time one of the matrons tries to to tell them off. Finding the balance between robust supervision and avoiding any potential upset/complaint from employees is an absolute mindfield and a difficulty employers have to face all the time. Whilst I accept there is no benefit to merely doing a blame game and focus should be on why something went wrong and what to do to stop it happening again, there also some circumstances where clearly an individual is negligent, incompetent or reckless. However the process, procedure, legal risks and administration in trying to formally discipline or dismiss them is very often far too much hassle so things remain status quo. It's really not an easy problem to solve.

In my experience most tradesman (particularly in the context of this thread) are self-employed or small businesses. Let's not get this thread off topic into one of your default rants about the corporate machine and all those disgusting neoliberal elitist rich people.

No, someone did not leave it to the last minute to iron out the details - it was a long, difficult and constantly thwarted negotiation. That included teams of people, cross party debate, cross party voting, and reams of paperwork. That's before we get onto the numerous disruption, protest, legal challenges and barriers from outside Parliament. Grow up and realise that Brexit is not down to one man. That still doesn't negate the fact that as soon as the clock started running sensible organisations began to prepare. Goodness sake there's been certainly enough publicity about it and every single law firm, advisory firm, consultant firm, accountancy firm has been banging on about brexit and doing their numerous advices, strategy notes, guidance notes for months on end leading up to it. A shortfall in drivers has been on the cards for years before brexit start both in Europe and here. Lets not make out they were caught on the hop.

Just who actually do you think I live with, socialise with and work with everyday. My god you really do have a high opinion of yourself as the voice of the supposedly "real ordinary working people". Whatever the hell that's supposed to be. I work and live very much in the real world thank you. I deal hands-on with the legalities and factors which fall out from these issues. I have first-hand experience of both those lower-income less fortunate people that you describe together with monied corporate environments over my career. Its made me pretty immune from deluded fantasies about how things are or how things should be in their opinion using childish soundbites or pointless campaigns about things they find morally distasteful but are perfectly legal activities. I don't buy into hysteria like no young people can never buy houses or all rich people are corrupt money launderers because it's complete nonsense. Preach all you want about morals but the law is all that matters. The law can be interpreted in many ways across many jurisdictions. It is complicated and voluminous and for the ordinary man in the street very difficult for them to understand. That lack of any understanding comes up all the time in situations like this where a little information comes out, the Press manipulates and cherry picks to sell their stories and suddenly everyone is a expert. Then comes the shaming, finger pointing, throwing around uncorroborated accusations, demanding punishments and redress and churning out some deluded rose tinted nostalgia about how it was all so much better back in the days when everyone was equal and sharing and caring without all this greed and money and power..... blah blah This is not a new story. Those who are conducting illegal activities as proven and sufficiently charged will be punished just like they have done in the past and will do in the future. (Don't try and make out that heads of corporations or Forbes list individuals have never actually gone to trial or been imprisoned. It certainly does happen and a quick look on the internet shows it). On the flip side, irrelevant of how moral someone thinks it is, if the activities engaged are perfectly legal then quite rightly nothing will be done. Simple as that. "I think you are morally wrong by doing X" means naff all, except if a company choose to "do the right thing" for a commercial or PR advantage. In those circumstances, the extra money is nothing more than a little bit of marketing expenditure.

The electorate voted to leave the EU. Parliament voted to set the wheels in motion to withdraw and started the clock. Parliament agreed the terms and we left as agreed by both sides of the house. Now companies, suppliers, manufacturers, diatributors have known we were leaving for 2 years on top of an already well established dwindling number of HGV drivers well before brexit even came into force have some responsibility..... He does right to play down considering the media's repeated hysterical reporting and selective imagery of cars queuing for miles desperate to get the last drops have some responsibility...... Moronic members of the public desperately chasing anything that looks remotely like a fuel tanker or filling up massive amounts which they didn't need have some responsibility..... ....But oh yes let's just play the simplistic option and blame everything on Boris as per usual 🙄. Pull your head out of the sand.

Go cry to your moral police force.... oh yeah there isn't one. Go pursue action in your moral court of laws... oh yeah you can't can you. Someone saying they think something is illegal behaviour is irrelevant Anna. It needs to be proven in a court of law. You can't just go around and declare "everyone knows it happens" as if it's beyond debate. You need to prove something. What happens? What behaviour? What fraud? What specifically is the illegal activity? What specific evidence do you have beyond reasonable doubt they have broken the law? Being vastly wealthy is not automatically a crime. Rich people having access to services that poor people don't is not default punishable. Having the means to shop around, utilise advantageous jurisdictions and follow up perfectly legal advice from your hired accountants is acceptable and available for anyone who has any sort of asset big or small. As I say earlier, every single one of us take some advantage over another. How many shop around, exploit nations with lower costs, look for any loopholes, take advantage of any tax or duty reduction, pay into share schemes or pension arrangements, gift out asset to family members, take cash in hand jobs, invest in the wonderful grey area of cryptocurrency......... The ONLY difference between the man on the bus and the billionaire is the amounts of money. The moral principle is exactly the same. It is clear that the politics of envy and jealousy are a big part of all this. Lower earners it's somehow deemed acceptable practice but as soon as someone gets over a certain amount in the bank suddenly they are thrust into the public profile, morally shamed exceedingly subjected to trial by media regardless of any wrongdoing. Now dont get me wrong. I am not saying that every single person exposed in these papers is innocent. I am sure like most things there will be some genuine criminals. But what I am disturbed by is this absolute blanket approach of being thrown around all over the media when not a single shred of evidence has yet been mentioned of illegal activity let alone any actual charges. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Seemingly if you are high-profile you don't have such rights.

Yes but we do not have a court of morals therefore if it's not illegal proven beyond reasonable doubt there can be no punishment. Suggesting something is illegal is meaningless unless it comes with evidence and solid evidence at that. I'm certainly not surprised by this document but I am rather bemused as to why these journalists and wannabe investigators have taken such great risks creating this data leak on something I suspect a vast majority of people already knew. Putting aside the meaningless moral arguments, surely by now, it's almost common knowledge that anyone who has vast amounts of wealth is always going to be well advised by their lawyers, accountants and other such advisors how to make sure they keep that wealth. In fact, I challenge anyone on this forum to seriously and 100% honestly tell me they would never consider similar schemes if they were fortunate enough to be in a similar wealthy position. Given the fact that millions of us engage happily in our low levels of perfectly legal tax reduction, tax avoidance, duty avoidance, jurisdiction advantage and other such activities all the time I really don't think these Papers are going to be the smoking gun that the journalists and amateur detectives think it is. Just like the Panama ones, a few famous faces will be embarrassed, they will make public statements and probably undertake some sort of token redress to appease the pitchfork wielding crowd. After that will be some another news story tomorrow and the water cooler gossip will be totally different. Its a fact that people do not become vastly wealthy by giving away a penny more than they have to. I don't care what anyone says, that applies to all of us. It's a simple question, was there any wrongdoing in law. If the answer is no - end of conversation. Be prepared for the spotlight inevitably switching to any illegal activity undertaken by said journalists in obtaining this highly sensitive and well secured information. We cannot avoid the potential hypocrisy that when sensitive information on ordinary low-income citizens gets splattered around during a data leak, they are entitled to vast compensation and sympathy for the victims. But I bet that's not going to happen to the uber wealthy and powerful subject to this data leak. Is it an unreasonable question to ask why not? After all, if all these rich and powerful have done nothing illegal and nothing wrong why should their personal data, investments and financial interest be publicly exposed. The only difference is the amounts involved which should be totally irrelevant. The principle is still the same after all.

Progressive? Accepting? Tolerant? forward thinking? The moment away from stereotypical gender pronouns is not a new concept. It has been on the rise since at least 2015.

I don't know how you can use that as an example. Boris Johnson was elected leader by his party, was elected leader by the nation by comfortable majority. He is still leader as we speak now and based on the current polling there is not much sign of him going away any day soon. He must be doing something right to get to that position. We get it - you don't like Johnson. But you need to pick a better examples try and prove your point.

The foreign workers who used to do the job before still had bills and taxes and financial responsibilities to pay. They were not all young free single men. Many of them had families at home which they had to continue to provide for whilst they were doing such work. It is not an ideal job for those with families but then it is not an ideal world. Breeding a child comes with responsibilities and there are plenty of other types workers whose job involves significant time away from their families. There are plenty of other workers who sometimes have to pay contribute to the burden of travel, accommodation and sustenance alongside keeping their primary home running. Oil rig workers, laborers, trades, building contractors, military workers, hauliers, installers, engineers, technicians, actors, performers..... just a few roles who have to spend several weeks or months of the year away from their homes. You asked who would want to be subjected to it? I say anyone who needs work. Far too many prepared to sit on their backsides expecting the government to look after them. Oh yes, we will breed a couple of kids but hey there's no work in the local area..... don't worry the state will pick up the tab. Disgraceful selfish attitude which I fear is starting to infiltrate across the spectrum of British workforce. "...I wouldn't get out of bed for that.." they scream. Well, if they are fit, healthy, capable and long-term jobless there shouldn't be any choice.

Who is gambling? Are they putting up their own money? Regardless, for those who choose to believe in the fairy tales about some supreme being - the word of "Jesus" has been interpreted and twisted and reimagined many many times over the past 2021 years. I hardly think appearing on Entertainment game show is some great sin.