ECCOnoob

Really? That is certainly not been my experience. In Dubai some shoppers may well be treated like a king but only if the price is right, you have the right look and enough cash to flash. I bet if you go and ask the low-paid, low skilled and and low-income workers who built that city up how they get treated they may have a very different story. As for the US, whilst of course they are notorious for their OTT service culture with the customer always being right, their malls are in the most relics of poorly built, run down, decaying and often completely dead structures. Whilst of course there maybe a few exceptions in glamorous locations, in vast amounts of Middle America, the rust belt and the southern states where the ordinary proles live, you will find and horrendous looking and run down mall complexes which have not had so much as a lick of paint for 40 years. Others suffered horrendous anti-social behaviour, shootings or other more serious crimes leading to tenants leaving in droves. There are entire documentaries and blog articles all over the internet on the demise of the Great American malls of the 70s and the complete oversaturation of the market which followed and is now in Sharp decline.

Oh good grief. Even more cooks spoiling the broth. Another extra layer of incompetent opinionated bureaucrats squabbling over everything causing delays until nothing gets done at all. I really don't feel this outcome is going to give people the changes and progress they thought it would.

The police and crime commissioner one is still being counted at the moment. I think the PCC result is due tomorrow. Not sure what happened with the council referendum part. Might be buried on their website somewhere

A few years ago a controversial US comic made jokes about his right to drive a petrol spewing 4x4 pickup truck whilst simultaneously clubbing a few dolphins and drinking from a single use plastic cup free from the judgey glaring disapproval of some environmentalist, vegan, cycle-natzi parent. the punchline... his actions would do a fraction of damage to the environment compared to their breeding a child. Many a true word said in jest and all that....

For the purposes of a debate would you feel the same if you walked past a group of people shooting up with heroin or walking around hallucinating after taking acid?

But there also lots of studies that say that cannabis affect people's paranoia, psychosis and put some in a depressed mood. There are lots of academic studies and medical tests regarding the links between frequent cannabis use and negative mental health issues. Even in the much more relaxed areas such as Amsterdam governments have raised concerns and consider bringing changes to their more lax policies. For all alcohol clearly create problems, I do not believe the comparison is so black and white.

Depends on what type of disability. Depends on its severity. Depends on ability to self travel. Depends whether they are working or not. Depends on how much income they receive from that work..... These are just some of the factors that should be considered and determined before eligibility. So, in your answer to your question - quite frankly no you should not be automatically eligible for a pass, however there of course must be failsafes and provisions for those who genuinely have a need. I don't think it's beyond reasonable to be questioning whether someone who happens to be able bodied but is stuck working in an unstable low income job should be compelled to paying extra tax to fund universal free bus travel for disabled persons, many of whom may in fact be working in more stable higher paid jobs. Ultimately, if they both rely on public transport to get to work just the same, why should the lower paid persons be funding subsidies for disabled persons earning higher wage. In a world of continuing development in disability rights, equal opportunities for employment, wage equality, advances in technology, working practices for remote, agile working or home based, legally mandated adjustments and adaptions to working practices and physical premises...... at what point does there begin to be an risk of imbalance on fairness. At what point does a disabled person reach an equal level with an able-bodied one in which makes the latter subsidising the former unfair??

Doing their jobs? The ones they get paid for? The ones that they studied and train for knowing full well of the the duties and responsibilities they will face? Let's not get carried away with OTT emotive language here. Yes they have all done a fantastic performance in the face of extremely difficult circumstances. Yes they should be praised for their well appreciated work. But it is still them doing their job. A job like anyone else also had to cope with all the challenges that covid brought up on their businesses or organisations. Lots of people have had a below inflation pay rise. Plenty of others had no pay rise at all or were subject to lost income through furlough. Even more people have faced the pressures of balancing their dwindling money, lots of belt tightening and robbing Peter to pay Paul. Can we stop this nonsense of putting key workers and particuarly NHS workers as some enhanced saintly superhero status. It's a worthy, difficult and necessary profession..... but it's still just a job.

Seriously??? This sort of trivial guff is the crux of your primary local issue decision making.... no wonder this city is stagnating and we get the incompetent morons of a council we have. Deregulation of local bus services started from around 1979 at which time are very own council was majority controlled by........ Labour. As for fright night....it was an event that was devised and operated by a private events marketing company. Why you are whining about the council boggles my mind. Given said private events company put up the majority of the cash to run the event any decisions to cancel it would have been primarily economic on their part and it was automatically replaced by something else deemed more profit-making. Ask for the stock ridiculous moan about free parking..... the obvious fact that no city centres offer "free parking". Goodness sake there's been the existence of chargeable car parks and these things called parking meters since the black and white days. Hardly some new fangled concept brought in by the evil Tories. What a ridiculous excuse for a bit of tory bashing your post, in fact the majority, of this thread is People need to get a grip and remember these are local elections. Enough with this horse crap about brexit, NHS budgets, covid vaccines and Track and Trace systems. This is supposed to be about OUR issues affecting OUR city. Enough with this constant red and blue cheerleading. Actually bother to study candidates properly and make informed vote for the ones who are going to best represent the city. That is all that should matter - not blindly following some colour choice or getting sidetracked by a load of pathetic backwards rose tinted nonsense.

So what's your suggestions then? How long is reasonable for restrictions to remain in place, at what point are you ever going to deem it suitable for them to be lifted. Viruses like this mutate all the time. We may never be in a position where it will be 100% guaranteed that someone will not bring some variant back. What do you propose - ban all travel outside of the borders forever? In the meantime, do we just let all the Airlines, hotels, travel companies, tour companies and their thousands and thousands of employees just collapse and become jobless? What about the counter impact on the economy, public finances, overseas trade.... People want and need to travel. They cannot be imprisoned in their own borders indefinitely. There has to be a reasonable and calculated balance of risk. Somebody has to make this very difficult decision and not be swayed by the multitude of polarised armchair critics all arguing the toss on anything between complete and unconditional bans through to complete open and unimpeded movement.

To be fair, given there's only £20 difference in the prices I don't think anyone would expect a massive difference in the size of the product. In their world just under 8 inches would be more than enough to squeeze an extra backside on.

That's all just opinion. Sofas have a range of sizes, shapes, seat dimensions, fittings dependant on the model, style, price and manufacturer. With respect, if I didn't have an ability to test it in the shop beforehand the first thing I would make sure is to check the measurements and dimensions before making an informed decision on whether it was suitable for purchase. Whilst I'm sure it is disappointing it has not matched your own expectations, as El Cid has rightly pointed out, if DFS have delivered exactly the product you ordered as per the exact measurements and specifications they set out on their product description - then they have done nothing wrong. If there is nothing structurally wrong with the sofa then you may have some issues obtaining a refund but their website does refer to cancellation policies of around 14 days after delivery which you may be able to look into. Probably best to contact store as a first port of call.

Possibly. However, the general public never seemed to give a toss when it was all the other falsely accused but older fatter uglier whiter celebrities. They never seemed to care when it's some ordinary man on the street being exposed by some local rag or falsely outed by some curtain twitching busybody vigilante groups. Why suddenly now do they care?? ITV and BAFTA are simply applying the same kind of reaction that any other employer or organisation would do if one of theirs was accused of such a serious crime. Where is the entitlement to special status. Nobody else will get it why should he. Lets face it, even in the highly protective closed shop of the Royal Family - they booted Andrew from his public duties and many of his patreonships after the allegations made against him.

Can we drag this conversation back to the realms of reality for a moment. Let's just think about what would happen if the accused had a less famous and high-profile job. What about if this story broke regarding a doctor who was accused of sexually harassing 20 female patients.... or a teacher who was accused of paedophilia..... a social worker who was accused of assault against one or more of their special needs clients.... Would there be the same chants of "innocent until proven guilty". Would the public accept letting them carry on with their work unhindered, making money, building their favourable reputation and public trust until such time as they were before a court. Of course we wouldn't. We would expect an immediate suspension to protect others from potential harm and to demonstrate both the seriousness of allegations and that such were being dealt with appropriately. Carrying on as if nothing has happened and nothing is wrong does not fall into that category. That is all that has happened here and it is the absolutely right decision in these circumstances. The only difference I see is that merely because he's high-profile, celebrity status, public persona a few selfish people are bemoaning the fact they can't watch an episode of a television program.

Well it certainly show some respect to the 20 or so women who are the alleged victims. It sends out a clear message that those allegations are being taken seriously and the network is prepared to put dealing with such issue ahead of its profits. It shows that there is no special treatment being given to the rich and high profile actor and demonstrates the same sort of suspension action which any employer would do if an ordinary joe worker was accused of such serious allegations. It limits the profile and image of the said accused being beemed across the nation and sends a message that such behaviour is not tolerated. It limits opportunity for said accused to be earning any more fees, boosting their profile, building ad revenue or receiving broadcast royalties whilst under investigation of such serious allegations. It certainly does far more than "nothing".

No I disagree. With the obvious exception of the monsters like Saville and Weinstein. There has been a string of white middle-aged to older gentleman accused of sexual harassment or worse all named and shamed by the horrors of trial by media who received little or no support from the gossips or twitterati until after they were proven innocent in court of law. Some of them, never regained their careers even after all that. I just find it interesting that the first time it happens to a younger, good-looking, left leaning, black actor the response from many is to be defensive with strong protesting about dangers of trial by media. Maybe perhaps one side is just prevalent than the other.... who knows. Either way 20 alleged people is a lot of fallout. Will be interesting to see how this plays. BAFTA have certainly not been sluggish in their suspension

I wonder if the seemingly defensive reaction by the Guardian commenters would be quite the same if the accused was say, a fat ugly old tory supporting white man. Let me be very clear, I am not saying what's right on either side, but there does often seem to be a discrepancy in the rush to defend when the accused fails to fall within certain categories.

Presumably that "lunatic fringe" you describe includes many of the people on the opposition bench, who let's not forget, we're screaming about the lockdown damage to those alone, vulnerable and lonely, the untold damage to our school children missing their education, the vast amount of jobs at risk by keeping businesses closed, the catastrophic impact on the economy, the irrecoverable damage to those poor downtrodden salt of the earth workers in the travel and hospitality industries...... on and on and on it went. Does that "lunatic fringe" you describe include all the warring factions of scientists, doctors and academics all throwing out their polarised opinions ranging from complete isolated lockdown for all forever to some declaring all these draconian restrictions have done more harm than good and should be repealed immediately. That's before we even get onto the pressures of continually shifting public opinion which again is completely polarised with absolutely no sense of common goal or neutral ground. Huge swathes of the population nailing their colours to the mask with a unmovable position that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Quite frankly whether he said the statement or not is completely irrelevant. Everyone has clearly made up their own judgement ( or more likely whatever their preferred choice of newspaper tells them to think) and that's it. Whatever truth actually would come out will be pointless because no one will ever move from their opinion now regardless of any facts. Even if he did say it, without any clear context as to why and in absence of the specific circumstances, it is meaningless. All the time the mudslinging continues it is just another petty distraction from the real issues going on. Personally, my suspicion is that this is manufactured outrage. Something he said taken out of context, distorted by chinese whispers, blown out of all proportion to get it in the papers and mangled even further by dubious newspaper editors to find the attention-grabbing advertising selling headline. All very conveniently timed to persuade opinion ready for local elections If these cowardly "sources" are telling the truth why the hell didn't they put their neck on the line and say something at the time not weeks, months or years later.

That's true. Plus we have to remember that the venues such as large theatres, Arenas and football stadiums have huge capacity to which the limited numbers of approved attendees can be organised and spread out safe distance away from each other. Most pubs, chapels and wakes can't offer such facility at the moment. They are much more intimate affairs so it's not really a fair comparison.

Go and ask Mr Barker. 3 pages on I'm still perplexed why your entire thread seems to be a massive criticism of the BBCs integrity when all they have done is quoted a direct coment from an interviewee. Also, whilst I am not a telecommunications engineer, you don't seem to give much reasons as to why this Mr Barker (if of course we all have complete disclosure of the full context of the question and answer exchange), is so monumentally wrong in what he says.

Don't get me wrong, I am not being a stick in the mud I already drive a hybrid and I don't have any objection to electric vehicles when the time is right. What I do object to at the moment is that the infrastructure is clearly nowhere near ready. It is well documented how long it takes for any sort of mass infrastructure to be built and yet to listen to the rhetoric and the speeches from the MPs it's as if it's ready and waiting just to be switched on tomorrow. It clearly isn't. What is clearly happening, as highlighted by the original post is a very real risk of a two-tier society. Drivers of fossil fuel cars literally been forced off the road because they don't have have either access to or cant afford to access the infrastructure. That is totally unfair and acceptable.

Only if they have their own car park. Take a look at an average city centre and see how many have. So that is going to put the cost of charging points either back on the council who will need to guarantee that every single parking space in their car parks is an EV one or it will be for the private car park operators to do the same. That's thousands and thousands of parking spaces up and down the country which will need conversion. I wonder what will happen with the parking charges?

That is true. But let's not forget that filling up with petrol or diesel literally takes minutes. For those using self service they can be in, filled up and out in less than 3 minutes. Nothing in the electric vehicle refilling can compete with that right now. Even the best, top of the range and most expensive refill stations for the Premier of electric cars still is at best 15-minutes. For others it can be anything up to at least an hour before your fuel can be reasonably topped up. We have all seen the queues that happen in a normal petrol station on a Saturday afternoon, how on Earth do we think people are going to cope when there are 15 to 30-minute turnaround per vehicle. I'm sure like everything it will evolve but we are talking long-term here. In my opinion there is currently a clear inbalance with the pace of EV infrastructure being way behind the pace of the rhetoric, bullying and penalizing of people into buying and driving EV. That imbalance is simply unjust.

The OP raises a very good question and one which I often think myself whenever I see MPs, do-gooders and celebrities spouting their grandeous statements about some electric car revolution which we all must adhere to immediately. It's the very question I ask myself every time I read some story about proposed government regulations, taxes or other penalties they intend bringing against anyone who dares to drive a petrol or diesel powered vehicle. I see lots of blue sky thinking and fantasyland announcements about this mass infrastructure which is going to suddenly appear out of nothing so everyone can drive an electric car. I see artist impressions of fantastical technology where people can "nip" into a "rapid" fuel station with the "convenience"of being on their way again in ohhh at least less than an hour 🙄 What I do not see is much in the way of a reality check. The reality that most average joes who are commuting, travelling for work or travelling to a specific place for a specific purpose don't have a convenient 30 minutes or so to sit in a fuelling station or the reality that your average Joe doesn't have a nice underground garage or purposely equipped driveway with a modern charging point readily available. We then have the question of where is all this extra electricity going to be generated from. If everyone suddenly switches to electric vehicles there are going to be huge surges in consumption particularly overnight when everyone at home is desperately trying to top up their cars. That electricity has to be generated from something and it's certainly not fairydust. Are we going to start opening up the coal mines again to make up for it or maybe we going to go nuclear.... perhaps we could litter the Peak District with miles and miles of huge wind farms.... I'm sure that would please the environmental lobby. Add on final and most telling fact that in this country we can't even get a bloody railway line built in less than 30 years - do they seriously think all this infrastructure is going to pop up out of thin air tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, I am not against electric vehicles. I will welcome then when the time is right. However, I don't expect to be bullied and penalised into getting one until I can buy one at a reasonable cost, use it, fuel it and keep it running with a realistic comparator to another ordinary car. Despite what a handful of eco mentalists living in Hampstead think.. in the real world that circumstance ain't gonna happen for a long time.

Perhaps if you actually read the article you will note that last sentence which you seem to be raising such objections to is a direct quote from the representative of uSwitch. Like all good news services the BBC journalists are reporting exactly what their interviewee said. If you have a problem with that take it up with Uswitch rather than bellyaching about the BBC.