ECCOnoob

Yes. It's a football match..........and? What the hell are you on about? What question do you speak of?

What the hell has my political allegiance, which you know nothing about, got to do with council bashing. At least when I do make criticisms I have sufficient reason to. As for your second point, no it is certainly not the "biggest thing that will happen in the UK this year". It is a football match. Nothing more nothing less. A simple sporting match which, contrary to every obsessive Media publication and Twitterati, a very high number of the UK population could not give two hoots about. Actually, I will suggest there are a lot of bigger things that will happen to the UK this year which far outweighs a football match. How about the little thing of a global pandemic, the massive changes to economy and lifestyles which desperately need to get resolved and repaired, the major efforts in trying to make sure that the population gets vaccinated against a potentially fatal viral infection....

That's probably why HHR used the words "applying to..." in their earlier post. Realistically what is this great "football heritage" you speak of in this city. To the average man on the street these days they wouldn't have a clue nor care about it. We don't have a mass of blue plaques all over the city pointing out historically important football related landmarks. We don't have bus loads of tourists coming in going on walking tours to see all the famous locations. We don't have some great Museum dedicated to the history of football. We don't have some ground of national importance hosting lots of big games. We don't even have a club that one could say is performing well in the top leagues. I really do think you are pushing that heritage legacy agenda far too much. I would say it arguable the our music scene is far more recognisable and established outside of our city limits than football, but even that barely gets a look in and certainly any real national-level importance. Any supposed of football legacy related to the city is way way way down the list to be any persuasive influence. Firstly because they are privately funding, secondly because they are operating under strict controls and third because they are part of the approved covid trial system. Tramlines is not a equal comparison.

Opportunity for what exactly? With exception of the expense of installing it, cost of security and policing it, cost of cleaning up and repairs after the event, just exactly what is the council gaining from this? Bearing in mind that kickoff is not until 8 p.m. being several hours after the shops closed and the majority of restaurants, bars, pubs and venues which are also going to be showing the match will have their own trade pre-booked days in advance, it's not as if the mass footfall is going to bring any great improvements to city businesses either.

Absolutely agree. Just looks like another excuse to do a bit of council bashing. Perhaps if someone like yellow bus events or one of their equivalent offered to host the big screen the council will be more interested, but I agree with others that personally it's a ridiculous idea and not one I would want our already dwindling resources being spent on. It may have escaped people's attention but covid has not gone away. Pubs, bars and restaurants still have very strict rules on numbers and how people access and use their services. At a time when there are still vast numbers of people in the city who are waiting either their first and/or second Vaccines, and in the middle of a very precarious time when the proposed lifting of restrictions could be repealed at any moment, do we really want to be deliberately setting up a mass gathering of loose crowds to watch a game of football. Yes I get it is a national event. Yes I get it is a rarity for the National squad to be in the final. Yes I get it is of great importance to many, but not all. There are plenty of ways people can watch it either in a group or private setting. Certain people and the hysterical Media may be talking as if the entire world is going to stop between 8-10 p.m. on Sunday but the reality is there are vast numbers of those who couldn't give a flying fig. It's just a football match.

I brought it up, as you well know, as an extreme example of the sort of illness or injuries that could impact someone before or shortly after taking retirement. The obvious point being, we do not adjust the retirement age downwards just in case some people may end up getting an illness or injury during their retirement worsening their quality of life. There has to be a balance based on how the majority of people will be. It is a clear trend that the majority of the next-generation of pensioners start work later, have far better work conditions and general health to their predecessors and are living longer. Therefore it is obvious the pension entitlement age and any associated other benefit also has to be just as fluid to reflect such changes in circumstances. Please highlight exactly where I said that? If not I suggest you retract it before it goes the way of your other more fruity post on this thread.

Lots of people are not working longer. That is the point. The days of dropping out of school at 13 and jumping into the world of work until retirement at 65 are long gone. For the next cycle of pensioners, work may not have started until at least 18 with even more not starting until their mid-20s. Generation University need to be paying in before they can draw out. So who's to say they are working longer. Compared to many people born in the 50s and 60s most of them will be working considerably shorter in both terms of hours and years of service. Is it really that unreasonable to be looking at increasing the retirement age by merely 2-3 years when the beneficiaries of such pensions and benefits such as the OP raises could have saved up to 5-10 years less contributions compared to their predecessors.

Neither is becoming paralyzed after a car accident, or getting diagnosed with cancer or having your leg blown off.... But we don't pull the retirement age down just in case somebody might get ill or infirm in later life. The blindingly obvious fact is that the majority of people are now living healthier, living longer and working in much better conditions than they did 40, 50, 60 years ago. There are also much more people staying in education right through to their 20s. They have had a much less time in employment to contribute into the system. Is it common sense for the retirement age to be increasing with such changes in circumstances. Without it, just exactly how long could we drift along funding our ever-increasing numbers of ageing population drawing their pensions before the sums run dry to sustain it.

Scenes like what??? A few seconds of video taken completely out of context with no sound and no background as to exactly what went on. A single person in a single location laying on the floor and clearly people around him arranging for some sort of help or ambulance. Hardly concrete evidence of some horrendous uncontrollable epidemic where nobody can so much as walk down the street without getting accosted by Spice users. Nobody it is trying to argue that these incidents or users or problems don't exist. But they are certainly not at the ridiculously exaggerated and sensationalized levels claimed by certain moronic Media publications and ill-informed members of the public. Nor are they a feature which is tied to Sheffield alone. Desperately trying to prove something that isn't there. Thankfully it seems the majority of us are just getting on with our lives, going out and about to do things that we need to do without buying into this hysteria, fear and paranoia.

I wouldn't wipe my unmentionables with the Yorkshire Live or in fact any articles under the "Examiner Live" subsidiaries of Reach PLC They are all literally the definition of a toilet roll publications. Equivalent to a digital version of the sort of crap that used to get pushed through the letterbox once a week filled with with 90% adverts and 10% so called news. Notorious for making stories out of nothing, light on facts, heavy on speculation or uncorroborated opinion. I bet they asked about two people to form that absolutely ridiculous and insulting article content. The same will be for some of the other recently published content including an article 2 days ago saying how sooooo many people prefer to shop in Meadowhall rather than the city centre. Well duh, the former is a purpose built shopping centre so of course they prefer to go there to shop. Then they carbon copy the same junk story across 30 different publications. Trying to pretend that we are all thick as if it's some real gathered local new source. All the ...... Live publications at the moment are getting in their knickers in a twist publishing sensationalized stories, bemoaning the fact that allegedly certain supermarket petrol stations are charging "£99 deposit" for fuel. That is a story clearly spiralled out of a tiny handful of dumbos who don't understand the widely established concept of pre-authorisation on credit and debit cards. Back to the original post, "overrun" my backside. The way some of these stories are reported it's as if we're all tripping over Spice users and beggars every time we step in the city. I was there literally less than 24-hours ago and noticed ONE vagrant in my area. The way such stories are written it is if such similar problems never exist in other cities. Absolutely desperate and embarrassing journalism to sell their stupid advertising space.

Wow. The complete ignorance shown as to the royal family's finances, personal and sovereign grant, is just astounding. You really need to go and educate yourself.

Load of crap. Didn't happen or just didn't get to hear about it as much as nowadays thanks to the instant communication have?? Is life on the street really that much more dangerous today or is it just the exaggerated and sensationalized culture of fear which has grown. Let's not pretend that burglary, assault, yobbish behaviour, vandalism, paedophilia and granny bashing is some newfangled concept. You know what we also had back in those "good old days" lower life expectancy, limited welfare state, limited employment rights, child labour, rampant racism, rampant sexism, slums, dire domestic facilities, outside toilets, life-threatening levels of pollution, hazardous industrial practices.... Some people really do have the rose tinted glasses glued on. If we were back in the so-called good old days, the clearly mentally disturbed individual subject to the original post would presumably be chucked out onto the streets and left the fester. Maybe that's ok to some people but I'd like to think we are slightly more civilised and forgiving than that. The troublemaker clearly has issues for which they of course should be penalised for controlled but as with another hotly debated topic on another thread, we shouldn't be just tossing people aside and abandoning them.

I would suspect it is likely yes. There are set rules regarding retention of data after archiving for so long before it gets destroyed. I do not know the exact rules off the top of my head but certainly in my own profession, law, we must retain all files for at least 6 years before being destroyed. It would not surprise me if similar rules apply to government functions, local authorities and/or banks.

He is being released because the parole board have assessed him fit to do so. They reached its decision independent, with full context, full facts and applying the relevant laws and regulations. They are professionals who are not subject to the sort of emotive, reactionary and uninformed opinion of bystanders nor the hysterical, speculative, sensationalszed and biased opinions of media outlets looking to generate hype to sell their product. Whether people like it or not, we don't lock away and throw away the key in this country. This man was convicted, sentenced and served their time and tariff as set by the judge. The only authorised authority has made the decision to release and should not feel bullied or harassed by the masses throwing around their opinions. Asking any lay member of the public whether a convicted criminal should be released will never lead to the answer being yes - so that's why ill-informed lay members of the public off the street don't get a say. Good grief, if the Board buckled every time there was push back on their decision the prisons will be overflowing and the whole concept of punish AND rehabilitation would be worthless. As for that Mirror article, quite frankly what's it got to do with him. He was a QC on the conviction side so what else is he supposed to say. Shock horror he disagrees with the decision of the parole board and makes completely uncorroborated guesses at what a court might have done if presented with such case today. Hardly rational evidence. Just a nice little earner from the Daily Mirror for some words from a has been. Articles like that and the twitterati throwing their opinions emphasises the reason why the parole board decision making is so needed to be independent.

Who on earth do you think supplies the Supermarkets. I really don't belive there is such a vast difference as you make out.

I never said it was the alternative, I was just trying to emphasise why people go to a restaurant like Pizza Hut. You talked about their salad offering as if that is their primary product. It isn't. At best it's nothing more than a sideline and for the majority of customers it won't even get a look in. Customers know exactly what to expect when they choose to go there and that is a fatty product. I really don't think more food education is going to change that simple concept. Yes I do think the fat and chemical laidoned ingredients of somewhere like Pizza Hut are the same that people use at home. Most average people are driven by price when it comes to their groceries shopping. They are buying bulk made, additive filled, water filled, fat filled, artificially flavoured, mechanically reclaimed, factory processed goods shipped in from all over the world. Everything from bread, greens, meets, even prepared vegetables have been subject to additives. Let's not forget that for some of the poorest customers it is far cheaper buying a box of pre-made frozen pizzas for £1 than it would ever be to start making one from scratch with fresh ingredients. Not everyone is privileged enough to have the luxury of ye Olde butchers, bakers and greengrocers with their abundance of fresh, natural, organic products readily available to them. The link between commercial restaurants and home ingredients from supermarkets is hardly such a stretch. Most of it comes out of the same factories from the same companies. The only difference is quantity. As for your comments on restaurants generally, I really do think you are being a bit naive, in fact almost nostalgic in your view. Whilst those circumstances you state might be the case in twee little Derbyshire villages or maybe for the suburbanites living in Hampstead, that average man in the street certainly has nothing like that in terms of their choice. Take a look at your average High Street's in the average town and what do we see. It is carbon copy fast food outlets, chicken shops, national chains, franchises and branding. Every pub restaurant with the same menu just in different colours and fonts. What are they all offering? Processed and often centrally made foods which are just reheated and slapped on a plate. Now in the world of deliveroo and other such apps, the distribution of that ultra-processed "restaurant food" is even quicker. This issue certainly not limited to what you call children's foods. Neither is it just a factor at a tiny handful of scummy corporate fast food brands. Like supermarkets, ALL restaurants are driven by price. They know what their markets is, they know exactly what people will pay and they will therefore adjust the quality, source and use of their ingredients accordingly. Of course there are some independent restaurants or premium level chains who will cook fresh with fresh quality unprocessed goods but if a customer base is limited it will be far far outweighed by the chain restaurants, chain pubs and fast food outlets who can offer cheap plentiful filling food for the masses - who care not a jot about the source, processing or treatments of their food as long as it's cheap. I don't know what sort of "British chip shops" or "British restaurants" you frequent on a regular basis but the lovely image you portray is certainly not my reality.

You talk as if freedom of choice and self-responsibility do not exist. Most ordinary folks on the street know full well that eating pies is less healthy for them the eating lettuce. They know the general principles of a healthier lifestyle is to eat less and move around more. They know full well that a balanced nutritious diet combining 5 fruit and veg a day is what the doctor orders. This is pretty much standard advice since year dot. However personal taste dictates that such rules are generally boring, unappetizing, unpleasant and avoided. Private Enterprise knows that. They know what makes money, what doesn't and tailor their businesses accordingly. Us consumers then lap it up choosing what restaurants we want to eat in. Of course those evil corporations and their grubby advertising men produce more fatty unhealthy food adverts than the government spends on on nutritional education but the obvious reason for that is that they are being paid for by private investment as opposed to having to produce advertising using taxpayer monies which most ordinary people on the street would argue should be better spent funding things like nurses and carers and schools. Perhaps if the message is so needed, maybe some of those overpaid sports stars and airhead celebrities who everyone seems to worship, could give up their time and do a bit of promotion on healthy eating and the benefits of vegetables. But of course they are just as greedy as everybody else. They will much rather be paid by Pepsi or or some sweatshop trainer manufacturer to have their face and name plastered all over the place. As for singling out Pizza Hut, I really don't know why. The salad is hardly their key product is it. It is a side dish at best. Everybody knows that Pizza Hut sells pizza and by its very nature, being a dough product covered in cheese and meat - it is obviously going to contain fat. However they go to Pizza Hut because they want a pizza. People are not going there to pick up a salad and freshly blended avocado and kale smoothie. Now perhaps if some very trendy, popular salad restaurant opens up which specialises in superfoods but just happens to sell a slice of pizza on the side, and that business miraculously becomes popular in reputation making billions across the globe with multiple outlets then... yes they're may be an argument here.

Thank you. Well from that little snipit you have given me and the fact you have advised it is a seven parter I certainly will not be watching it. I'm not committing that length of time to endure even more droning on and on about this case, more attention drawn the already press hungry, media manipulating professional victims who are her parents. I'd love to know the the back-end machine and backhanders that are being done to get this thing commissioned into a virtual mini series. Just emphasises the criticisms that many others have raised even more. The posh, White Collar middle class professionals losing a child get all the attention and continue to milk for all it's worth whilst the significantly poorer, working class council estate parents losing a child barely get a look in.

Why? You're going to have to give a bit more information to get my attention.

Some people would query what the problem is with that. If you are warned of the hazards and and independently choose to partake in the risk, they should also be liable to pay for any self-inflicted damage caused a result. Happens all the time in many other sectors. That is why people take out additional insurances to cover x y and z. The level between providing universal, extensive free at source health care while still encouraging and enforcing and and people failing to take responsibility for their own actions is a very very fine balance.

On the flip side, it was seen by many to be very insulting. Treated as if disabled employees had to be kept hidden away in some protective bubble away from the regular workforce. It labelled them as second class workers who were clearly not capable of doing "proper" work for "proper" wages. It became a token gesture... just something for them to do to fill the hours and get a little bit of pocket money. The whole issue is a can of worms. It's a heated debate which is happening right now in education. Controversy over disabled students being excluded from being taught to read and write, separated out to dealt with by special teachers in special school environments away from regular pupils. This riled plenty who are demanding that irrelevant of the severity of the learning disability, special needs pupils should be doing the same stuff alongside regular pupils. This is all against the background of lots of other people demanding that disabled students have their own dedicated, safe and specialist education establishments where there is less focus on some mandatory inflexible curriculum and far more bespoke on their special needs. This debate rages every time they setup some kind of specialist ringfenced service. There is always those protesting that disabilities must be thrust into the mainstream, not hidden away like some private club and that those with disabilities have absolute equality alongside those without. That clearly goes severely against the grain of establishing and funding a modern-day Remploy type operation. Can't have it both ways.

I thought all the teachers have been supposedly working very hard throughout the pandemic. Thought there was lots of money poured into resources so that these teachers can carry on providing the education to their students remotely. I thought all these teachers were classed as essential workers and were providing skeleton schools opening to healthcare workers and others who couldn't stay at home. That's certainly what the unions have been bleating on about. Now it's moaning because they are not getting vast amounts more money for supposed "catch up" education. No matter what they get never seems to be enough as certain types of civil service. One questions if they have kept doing their job properly as there Union mouthpieces protest - why exactly is there any for such vast amount of "catch-up" education. If the pandemic has caused a setback and difficulties to education think it's only fair to question what the existing per pupil budget has been spent on during the time. Can't have it both ways.

Just you watch this space how quickly they will setup head offices outside of the G7. Just wait and see what their very clever lawyers think up to find some loophole. I'm not opening the champagne just yet. This is only at the start of the war and I cannot see the corporations lying down and taking it that easy. I'm not convinced that developing nations desperate to enhance their power over the world won't be taking steps to seize the opportunity to welcome these companies with open arms. The principle is great. I am fully in support. But it's actually getting everybody on side to create a level playing field that is a hard part. If all Nations bind together together a united front - fantastic but I'm not convinced somehow.

Oh yes you do. Here we go again, another load of entitlement syndrome. Overreacting, criticising and complaining about an everyday normal occurrence on a public forum and then attacking those who call you out when you are wrong. It has being politely explained to you the reasons why the rules exist. It's the law and shops and businesses are not going to risk getting caught out especially when the people behind the counter can be held personally liable. This has been the rules for several years now. Most people have an expectation that if you're buying anything which is restricted you take out some form of identification. All you will need is something that can prove your date of birth, take it with you and problem-solved. In your circumstances you may even have an easier option of potentially asking your support worker or carer to assist with purchasing the goods.

Based on most of the companies I deal with working remotely they are either doing exactly what they are paid to do or in many cases a lot more. I'm not buying these myths about people lounging around in the garden ignoring their work or laying in the bath with candles and a good glass of wine at 11:30 in the morning. My company's system knows exactly what time I log in, when I'm available, when I'm in meetings when I log out for lunch, exactly what documents I have accessed that day, how many new documents I have created that day and exactly what time I log out. I'm connected to my colleagues and of course my management team through two separate phone lines, a chat box and an online Messenger. That's same management team can, at the click of a button, connect to my machine take control and see exactly what I'm doing. Whilst my company's system may be at the advanced end, many others out there will be similar systems with the same level or partial level of functions. Don't be getting swept up in the hype and myths that all these 'privileged' white collar workers who have the freedom to work at home or work agile are sat there taking the mick. For many , the blurred lines between home and work life cause real problems - even more so when technology has created an entitlement syndrome that someone should always be available anytime anywhere.