ECCOnoob

Get it down to less than 5 and people might then be interested. Until such time, most professional drivers and business travellers don't have 40 minutes to spend in their day waiting for a "quick" charge.

So just to be absolutely clear - what you are suggesting is that students should be forced to get a test or if they fail to do so, they will be held against their will in the university grounds debarred from leaving to travel home or elsewhere. Right? Have you actually considered the small legal, moral and human rights complications arising from such actions.

They have a career ladder they can climb just like anybody else does. There is nothing stopping those essential shop workers, warehouse operatives, care workers or delivery drivers from pushing for promotion, doing the necessary training to get qualified and working their way up to become supervisors or managers even a company director if they so wish. There are plenty of stories of the life of that Saturday girl behind the till who eventually became the big cheese, earning the big bucks, in the big office. There are plenty of articles about that "bloke down the market" who develops into owning a multi-billion pound international conglomerate business. Does everyone have these opportunities? No of course not. There will always be those that miss out either through personal choice or reasons beyond their control which prevents them from taking such steps.......but that is part of life. Nobody said it's easy and nobody is owed a living. Like I've said before, it's about looking after number one. We all forge our own path in this world and employment is no different. Essential jobs are of course important but whether we like to admit it or not the fact is people are paid for what their skills, qualifications, rarity and sellable value is worth. It's all well and good saying that delivery workers, shop workers and carers etc are essential but if there is a queue of people with exactly the same level of skill, competence and training to do the job should one ever be replaced, that clearly is going to have limits on what level of pay such job role attracts. Bottom line is the more skilled or qualified or complex the job role the more someone gets paid. The more rare, sellable or asset a person is the more they can demand they get paid. It's just business. The harsh reality is employees are a commodity like any other.

Ha!! The backpaddling has started. https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/car-insurance-driving-during-lockdown-19246083.amp Looks like the so called journalists took some dubious advice from a a price comparison blog site and turned it into a "news" story without doing that little thing called fact checking 🙄

You still watching it then despite all your moans about it. Is the off button on your TV broken or something?

To be fair to the original poster it's a story that's been published in several newspaper outlets including one national one. The fault really lies with these desperate trash publications, including our own Sheffield Star, who these days no longer actually do journalism and have turned into advertising whores with a little bit of clickbait stories thrown in. You only have to look on the website of any of these regional publications and your eyes are assaulted with 90% pop-up adverts and banners with about 3 paragraphs of content. They then have the audacity to limit the amount viewings per week and beg you to pay money and subscribe to their publications. They are having a laugh.

I have doubt most of the trump voters even knew what the Paris Agreement was or even where Paris is. They dont think. They just did what "The Donald" told them to do and got all excited in case they got a free hat thrown at them

I have seen this article rehashed on several of the local rags and I think The Express were the first to break this so-called news. Smacks a lot of advert to me rather than anything else. I'll be interested to see some of the the outcome of the court cases on such matters. What on earth is been deemed "outside of the insurer contract" if someone say like myself has a fully comprehensive group 1 business insurance. Given there is a huge range of reasons why people still need to travel and various exceptions they are opening up a minefield with that one. If I had an accident the determination of whether it was an essential journey is a matter for the police not the insurance companies. Say I smash my wing mirror on a post while trying to park somewhere and put in a claim are they really going to go and check the police records to see whether my journey was essential and put me under interregation? Obviously for those who have different types of policy there may be more risk of breaching some rule but I just found the whole thing very very suspicious.

Who cares? I don't go in for all this tittle-tattle stuff. I am sure there are lots of world leaders who don't like dealing with other world leaders but they have to because it's their job and good for their Nations or their trade agreements or just a general consensus of how the world should be run. I don't like lots of people I have to deal with in my job but I do it it for the result I need. Of course there is no doubt that a healthy and happy relationship makes things a lot easier and makes the better negotiation but ultimately politics is about more than just "the person". Something which loser Trump never did and never will understand. The popularity contest begins and ends the election process. Soon as that's over the sphere is much wider including who one has to learn to deal with whether they like it it or not.

.....Jobs, carers, support bubbles, shoppers, childcare, takeaway collections and delivery drivers, taxi drivers and maybe just people who fancied getting out of the house and taking their car for a run out..... loads of potential reasons. 8:45 is certainly not deemed late night by any means. I don't think even the major stores close until after that time, let alone smaller businesses and food service.

Well compared to the some of the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, paedos who lingered on the networks back in the day... I know which one I would prefer.

Yes they do. The big difference now is its shown on multiple different channels on multiple different platforms. The way that people consume media goes well beyond three channels offering a fixed schedule. That applies to the talent as well. There are some brilliant actors, writers, producers making original content going direct to the Sky TV platform or Netflix or Amazon or Hulu. For other people YouTube has become a full-time lucrative career which goes well beyond producing grainy webcam blogs from their bedrooms. There are now entire big budget big crew productions being made and uploaded which attracts more viewers than some of the ye olde television could only dream of. The world evolves and it's all too easy to bring a personal taste into arguments that talent and quality no longer exists. Far too many wearing rose tinted glasses. Take a good look at some of that so called classic clean family fun comedy and light entertainment from the "glory days". Watch it carefully with modern day eyes. Revel in the unsophisticated tackiness of it, embrace the casual sexism and racism and homophobia and lazy stereotyping. Was some of it really this great fantastic, timeless, superior entertainment?? Or was it just that people had nothing else to watch. If you want a quick synopsis of how the world has changed let me put it this way. According to a certain online encyclopaedia, the most watched programme of 1978 was Sale of the Century. By 1990 the most watched programme was Neighbours. In both 2009 and 2010 Simon Cowell's reality shows hit the most watch spot and in the final two recorded years for 2019 the resurrection of Gavin and Stacey hit it with finally this year's recorded most watched programme not even been any sort of entertainment, it was the p.m. statement on easing of covid lockdown. If that sort of sample doesn't show that more and more people are finding their entertainment elsewhere from traditional telly I don't know what is.

A quick look at the news shows there are plenty of other countries which are in just as difficult position as we are. Did they ALL get it so wrong? Planning for a pandemic is one thing. Spending significant amounts of finite public money to stockpile and prepare for something that either may never happen or if it does happen, only effects minimal percentages of the population is another thing. We know that something has to be done but behind the headlines and all the scary figures we must not forget that even at today's count, the ambiguously titled 'covid related' deaths in this country still amounts to just 0.07% of the total population. Even the more headline grabbing 'infection' numbers which tops a million still only equates to just 1.6% of people. Whether you agree with their protests or not, it's not difficult to see why some people really don't agree with this disruption on their lives, livelihoods and income for what they clearly feel is overkill. There has to be a balance and somebody has to make the difficult decisions. Everyone's an expert with the benefit of hindsight. Furthermore, those Experts throwing out these worst-case scenarios, predictions and demands are very often the ones who don't have to face the public and deal with the fallout of their actions. Neither do they have the burden of trying to balance an already precarious public purse and national economy with controlling the disease. There is no simple answer to this crisis and it's certainly not as black and white as you are making out.

Personally I think the opposite. Tarrant held the position long enough and the world is awash with smiley, springy, enthusiastic, jazz hand, shiny jacket game show hosts. I think Clarkson has been a bit of a fresh air. The pace of the show has picked up, he doesn't linger on mollycoddling the contestants and in his usual jovial way he will call them out and they do something stupid. Is anything let's down the current run of the program is the fact that the schedulers decided in their wisdom to put them all together over a couple of weeks rather than spacing them out once a week. To me that's the equivalent of having all your 3 course dinner on the plate at once. I don't blame him. I would be too if I had to record 4 or so episodes a day. Despite the glamorous image on camera the world of TV is like shelling peas for routine shows like quiz programs.

I have never seen anything like it in a Western world election. It's absolutely shameful. When we see images of gun-toting nutjobs protesting in the streets, making ridiculous threats and spouting blatant lies just because they are losing a democratic process we usually consider it a kind of thing to be from some uncivilised dictatorship in the Middle East or Asia. The fact that this is happening right now in supposedly the most powerful nation on Earth just blows the mind. It just shows how much hatred, misinformation and rhetoric he's stirred up over the years. Forget talk about building a wall around the Mexican border - I think it's about time we seal that "middle america" bible bashing, gun-toting, pickup truck driving, hillbilly bit of America in. It is often reported that they have completely lost their 'superpower' status to China and when you look at the television at the moment you can see why. The world is watching and they can't believe what they see.

Could not agree more. I've kept saying. For all people try and believe in the delusion that we have the ability to be this fair, equal, sharing and moralistic society - it's not going to happen. Some people of course portray that image when they have the means to do so and to get some other form of personal gain from it in return. But, make no mistake,when times turn hard everybody reverts to their natural human instincts of looking after number one and getting to the top of that food chain.

Is that a part of what we are supposed to pay our council tax for?

Well, exactly the same basic reasons as all the poverty, homelessness and starvation certain people faced back in the Victorian times or the great recession of the 20s or following wartime or the great recession of the early 70s or the housing crash of the 80s and the mass interest rate rise or the collapse of the dot com boom of the early 90s or maybe even the banking crisis of the 2000s.... Good grief the vagrancy act was established right back in 1824, the term temporary accommodation was first used in the 1948 National Assistance Act. Legal definitions of homelessness was put in statute in 1977 and even the most vocal of homeless charities, Shelter was established in the 1960s. This is not exactly a new story nor can it possibly be argued that it's as a result of one single colour of government. Yes yes of course we have all seen the news pictures and the sad faced interviews with those parents who can't feed their children, and those Slacktivism social media campaigns about the pensioners who were about to lose their home and the rah rah chanting and placard waving from the middle classes banging on about how awful these corporations are and their greedy tax avoiding ways before stepping into their nearest Starbucks to grab a mochabocachocolatte and we read the Guardian opinionators spewing about how the internet is all terrible and ruining the high street and creating mass jobless and economic gaps whilst sitting in their Holland Park ivory Towers picking up their Amazon parcels and Wholefoods pre packed lunches...... but the question still remains. Is the poverty position worse now or do we just get to hear about it more. Regardless, whatever my opinion, one thing YOU can't say with any credibility is that such dire circumstances only exist after one woman who is not been in power for 30+ years and has been dead for over 7 years. Its nonsense.

I don't think that's what I or newspaper has done at all. Have you completely overlooked the comments from the the University of Sheffield sociologist or the professor in criminal law from the University of Birmingham? There is clear comment that the prevalence of crime was unreported. There wasn't the immediate awareness of it as happens now due to modern social media technology with all its associated hype. The fact remains that whenever someone will think back to the Swinging 60s they will simply block out the fact that crime existed and may have existed just as much as it does today. The reporting of it didn't exist in the same form and that is a big difference. Of course I'm not accusing everyone who carried a knife as some murderous stabber but at the same time I'm not so naive to think that knife crime, muggings and violent behaviour only significantly escalated after Maggie took office.

Will you stop bringing up "Thatcher's Britain" it's a weak argument. The concept of winners and losers, rich and poor, the haves and the have not were established for centuries before Thatcher was even a twinkle in someone's eye. You really do need to broaden your horizons as to what the realities of life in the 50s 60s and 70s was like, even well before that. We are all guilty (including myself) of only remembering the nice bits. Many of us were nothing more than children during those periods and only saw one tiny part of life. Even more of us weren't even born at all and so only have the image of those periods from the warped interpretations portrayed by our parents and grandparents. Is still amuses me that there are entire areas in South Yorkshire who are sometimes two or three generations on from the Thatcher era who are still blaming her for their own failures in society. It's embarrassing. The research is out there for all to see. The actual hardships of daily living, earning and keeping a roof over ones head was just as difficult "back then" as it can be today. The rich, entitled, lucky and privileged were just as prevalent in society back then as they are today. We need to stop pretending that one prime minister's reign is the epicentre of all social and economic overhaul. It wasn't.

The 60s were filled with gang activities, attacks and knife crime. In fact I remember reading one newspaper article which stated that more people carried a knife in 60s than do on the streets today. The 70s were filled with a range of racism, homophobia, civil disobedience and other hate crimes. Football hooliganism was rampant as was drug use and the beginnings of substance abuse which led into the 80s. Same as always with these discussions some people go all nostalgic for the so-called "good old days" and get stuck in that rose tinted blindness. If we really want to be talking about the big difference between then and now, Its that now a crime takes place and within seconds we all hear about it thanks to the wonder of social media.... with of course the caveat that reporting of it is accompanied with a load of gossip, rumour, speculation, opinion, exaggeration, scaremongering and falsehoods which is all amplified further by the time it hits the TV news and papers. Back on the subject at hand, Irrelevant or whether it's 1960 or 2020 the same principle applies. There will be good and bad people in every area. There will always be the popular areas which fuel house prices against less popular areas which are cheaper. There will always be those who have a big house fully paid vs those who have a small flat which they rent. Despite the fantasies brought up by some people on this forum - we never have and never will have a fully equal society where everyone has the same. Life does not work like that. Unless you are one of the very privileged whom get inherited property, we all have to start somewhere. I started in a tiny flat as a rental and then scrimped and saved my way up to buy my first old knackered terraced house. That was then followed by move into a bigger house closer to the city as I developed my career. 50 years earlier my parents did exactly the same thing.... they started off in a rented terraced in area they didn't particularly like and as and when they could and the money allowed they took the risk to move up the ladder. As with so many other people it wasn't always good times. They nearly destituted themselves trying to survive the housing crash and the huge interest rates that shot up, they had to downsize at one point before eventually managing to get back to where they wanted to be. Nobody said it's easy.

That is quite a tenuous link even for your standards. From reading the original post it is not clear other than a couple of google links whether it's available on the NHS or not. The OP certainly wasn't sure Even if it was available through a GP, the original poster volunteered that they were not prepared to investigate further and endure what they assume will be a long wait - so they are choosing to look for alternatives privately. I really don't understand how you are hijacking some simple enquiry as desperate evidence of alleged creeping privatisation into the NHS. It's totally unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

With respect Anna, for a significant amount of people there is no such thing. Spiritualism and religious following does not apply to all and there are significant numbers who do not rule their lives by what they perceive is nothing more than a fairytale and a belief in a mythical Sky being. The harsh reality is that human behaviour in its most basic natural form is fight for survival, greed and selfishness. Those traits become even more apparent when times become hard and the said fight for survival (be it through retention of wealth, employment or personal circumstances) becomes even tougher. I wouldn't say that any of that falls under some "moral" obligation. There is no such mandation for one. There's no such thing as a court of morals and the only thing people really care about deep down when that fight instinct is triggered is whether they are within what the law interpets as. When hard times hit moral duties don't even enter someone's mind.

The same could be said about lots of places but there's still plenty of people who go and spend all day there. Meadowhall is a perfect example. Personally I get grumpy if I spend more than 20-minutes in there but there are some people who will spend all day wandering around, having a meal, going to see something etc. Exactly the same in some of the places you mention, some people enjoy shopping and spend hours browsing in the windows, going through the racks of items and deciding what they want. People enjoy simply having an aimless wander round, maybe taking some time over lunch which could easily while away many hours. Add the fact that some other visitors to the town may be there for business reasons or appointments - so it's not always about just the tourism.

Good luck with that. It's not just about politics that's human nature in general. For all we may pretend it isn't and for all we try to suppress it - we are still just cavemen. It's all really survival of the fittest. A power grab. Show of dominance and superiority over others. Looking out for the advantages and opportunities and seizing up on them when they arise. Even those who portray an image of being a philanthropist and looking out for others it's all just fake. They all have deep-rooted selfish reasons for doing what they do whether it's to portray a better image for themselves or use their philanthropy to make connections and contacts that they can take advantage of. Our angelic nurses, support workers and carers in the NHS are of course the heroes in this pandemic but they are still just doing a job for which they are getting financial renumeration for. All those unpaid volunteers campaigners, "do gooders" may well be giving up their time and money to support a cause but the reason is because they they get an ego boost and a positive impression on their image in return. I don't think it's ever going to go away no matter how much people try. Its deep-rooted in our own personalities and breeding. Politics may well give people more facility and scope to behave that way but even mass reforms will not ever eradicate it. In all aspects of life whether it's politics, financial, careers or just do it today living there will always be those who find the advantage that takes them a step above all others.