ECCOnoob

I have assumed the original poster is referring to the section between Cathedral and down to Castle Square. I have seen people before turn left at the end of York Street and head down before realising they are on the cobbled or paved section of the tram track. However I am also in agreement something else is missing from the story. I don't understand the immediate rush to consult a solicitor before any fine or other sort of action arises. Also the advice itself seems rather dubious. Technically, vehicles can and do legally access those parts of the Tramway to access the side streets so unless the driver travelled all the way down to where the ballast begins I'm not 100% sure what the offence was. As other posters have said there was no advice on the signage or any sight of the area where the alleged offence took place. I don't actually know how they were able to advise you at all so quickly. Even if they were 'caught' surely the explanation would simply be that they took a wrong turn, didn't realise until they were able to get back onto the next crossroad.

I'm sorry but that seems rather over paranoid. Card payment ticket machines have been around for decades and cashpoints have been a fixture on our high street since the 70s. With regular check on ones bank statement it can be easy to spot any rogue transactions and report them to the bank. Otherwise if you are that worried about thieves accessing your primary account I would suggest obtaining a prepaid or low value credit card so you can minimise the risks I'm having to use electronic machinery such as this. The fact is that e-payment is ever expanding and is unlikely to be slowing down. This is even more so in the wake of the covid outbreak. A reluctance to use it will mean that you will likely be left behind or even completely debarred from accessing certain services.

In a nutshell yes. That's supposed to be part of their job. Of course they should be having a wide and detail public consultation on large-scale expenditure schemes such as this. Even more so when it's implementation would have such obvious impact and disruption to not only people going about their day but also for businesses in the surrounding area .

I disagree. I call it institutional failure. The incompetence goes far beyond goes far beyond one person. You have just perfectly described above the complex layers of bureaucracy machinery that goes into these things and clearly there's been multiple failures across the board. There is no ambiguity on one thing though..... the scheme was a foolish waste of money.

Sorry not buying it. All sounds far too much like PR spin to save face. Isn't the reality that it was the massive backlash from the public and business owners - not just in this city but many other cities that have introduced these half assed schemes - that was the trigger in the decision to remove it. Maybe next time those geniuses in town hall might actually want to do some proper consultation and ask people whether they want and use such facility before implementing such massive disruption to people. They can try and spin it all they want but it was clear it was nothing more than a desperate money grab. Central government was handing out the pounds to try something and they jumped in grabbing with both hands without any thought as to how it would actually be implemented, how it would actually affect the population and whether the city even wanted it in the first place. It's the whole student games, city of sport, city of sanctuary, clean air initatives, tram-train trial...... all over again. Whoring ourselves time after time to be the lab rat ready to be tested on, poked and messed around to demonstrate some harebrained idea. Oh well never mind. Its only ratepayers money chucked down the drain to rectify this u-turn. Nobody in town hall cares about them, after all they are just a little people funding the SCC dreamworld.

Back in the dark ages when I did my test there every participant did a bay park as a final move at the end of the test. However I also during the test had to do a parallel park on some residential street around the corner. To be honest, if you are concerned about which manoeuvre you will get I would think carefully about whether you are sufficiently prepared and ready for the test by your instructor. The fact is that you should be confident in performing all or any of those three maneuvers as it may come dependent on your examiner

I am not convinced by that. There are still plenty of news channels broadcasting 24 hours a day and even one main bullein a day on the the normal channels would be enough for most people's consumption. As for the internet there are plenty of 'elderly' now who have ample access. In another decade there will be significantly more. After all by 2030 it would have been a known thing available in people's own homes for over 36 years. More than half a lifetime of that generation of elderly. 2019 statistics from the ITU estimate the 82% of European citizens use the internet. Add another 10 years and I really don't think access will be the the concern at all. I think the predictions made in the article are quite right and and like all other broadcast services news delivery has to adapt.

Some Poundland level Piers Morgan wannabe who thinks his over inflated opinions matter. Technically called himself a journalist but I guess that goes in the category as Morgan calling himself a "journalist". I think back in the day we used to call em shock jocks. Now it seems to have been given some pretentious legitimised status and appears to be retitled something like "controversial debate" or "alternative facts"

I'm just loving how the SCC spin department are trying to to portray in their announcement that this was some kind of scheduled end to a planned trial. They wouldn't dare tell the truth that it was in fact a climb down after the introduction of this incompetent, ill judged, poorly executed steaming pile of horse manure which was nothing more than some rushed into desperate money grab. Whoever is in charge of so call planning in that monkey cage they call the town hall really should have their head roll for this but I bet they won't.

I was going to say, when they are pulling into a stop off midway through a route it's usually because they need to regulate service times. It's exactly the reason why tube trains sometimes stop for a few minutes at stations before moving on. When you are talking about "getting somewhere on time" are you talking about in line with a published timetable or your own interpretation. I very much doubt that drivers are doing this stuff on a whim. The days are Blakey and Butler are long gone. Buses these days are fitted with trackers and monitors and radio control and cameras. Those in charge will be able to know exactly where they are and where they need to be at the click of a mouse. It's a bus not taxi and it runs to a schedule. If you want door-to-door on your own clock then you need to find an alternative.

John Lewis in Sheffield still have quite a few high end pens.

Just a few paragraphs into the guardian article and I'm already confused. In the attention grabbing headline and first sentence we have lots of reference to the word 'evade' which of course is an illegal act. But then in literally the next paragraph there is lots of whinging about how only the super rich can't access offshore bank accounts and afford clever accountants and lawyers who can advise and how to do things. That sounds to me like tax avoidance, which for all the morality arguments, is technically legal. After all it will be highly unusual for a qualified and regulated legal advisor to be deliberately setting up their clients on a known illegal tax evasion scheme. Add on the fact that said Panama Papers complete with confidential and privileged legal information was thrust into the public domain by why what source exactly? I think it's pretty obvious it wasn't done by a nice request letter and signed form of authority from the the data owner. Best not be too premature to be on the moral high ground with that one. Now whilst of course I have not read the sourced academic white paper in any detail I would at least expect a supposedly journalistic outlet such as the guardian to get the basic facts clear. So my question is which is it? Is it a fantastic piece of investigative reporting highlighting lots of illegal activity which of course should be forward into the relevant authorities....... Or is it a general whinge about how it's all so unfair and immoral and selfish and greedy, despite in reality being perfectly legal to those who have enough assets and enough knowledge.

Of course they are. They are breaking the law. When people break the law they get punished. This is not a difficult concept. Want to use the service of live broadcast television on any broadcaster on any platform? Then you need to pay for a licence as mandated by the law. If you don't want or can't afford then you don't have. What exactly is the problem?

Wow. That is a hell of a generalisation to be making. I'd like to see your evidence for that statement. We can all play that kind of game. If I wanted to make a sweeping unsubstantiated generalisation I could declare that the working class are too thick to understand brexit. But I don't see the world as simple black and white like you do. I know full well that is not the case. I certainly don't believe it's "very much middle class who have anxiety about brexit". There will be a high number of working class people in London and the South East right now who will be very worried about Brexit. Same in Scotland and Wales. Same in Leeds and Manchester in fact anywhere where all the other 48% of the population who didn't want the thing in the first place reside. There will be a hell of a lot of agricultural working class who are extremely worried right now about their jobs and livelihoods when their subsidies all go to pot. There will be significant amount of working class haulage workers, travel and leisure workers, distribution workers, construction workers, contractors and administrators who, if they have any connection either through their employer, subcontractor or supply chain with a foreign jurisdiction, are all going to be affected by the changes that could come in January 2021 and will quite rightly have concern about that. There are plenty of retiree working class who have have either holiday home, timeshare, caravans or residential property abroad who will also be affected by the changes and will have concerns over effects on their pension and healthcare, insurance and travel freedoms. On the flip side of your inaccurate sweeping statement I will put money that there are a lot of middle class, middle England, County set who could not give two hoots about brexit. I'm alright Jack mentality can apply to any grade not just a single one. Bringing class war into this is far too simplistic. It affects us all and whether you are terrified what's going to happen or elated - it covers the entire spectrum.

Perhaps you should and then you will be able to participate in a reasoned debate without trying to prove a point with silly emojis. Go and look at every single one of the "big stars" you have listed as an example. Look at their chronology and the amount of television work, small cameos or other minor roles that they all will do in between the odd major/high profile part. That is how life is for most actors and unlike you, I don't see any distinction between those past big stars and many of the modern sitcom actors that you seem to dismiss. I've said it before and I'll say again someone's personal taste isn't a factor. Success is measured in many different ways and with far more objectivity than simply "...I don't like" or "...I've never heard of". Was it really "better" in the old days or is it just that times now are different as are tastes and trends.

You are doing it again. You are taking your own personal opinion as if it's fact. Just because you have never heard of them does not automatically mean they are not big stars. You declared that ".....don't imagine most modern sitcom actors would become film stars..." I've given you several examples which counter that position and now you are trying to nitpick about who you recognise and the level of their roles in films. Go and do some research. Take a look at some of your own examples of what you deem big stars - you will find that they didn't exactly have blockbuster movie after blockbuster movie. Many of those 'big star' actors in between films will do lower level television work or cameo roles or theatre work just like many of the 'modern' sitcom actors do. Sometimes such roles will be a smash hit, another time they will be a ratings flop. A big name alone doesn't automatically mean a good programme. Yes I'm aware that The Office was 20 years ago but given you were harking back to the 'glory days' of sitcoms from from over 40+ years ago - you are not exactly clear in your interpretation "modern" or "todays" sitcoms. Doesn't this all really boil down to to a load of simplistic......dont like change...... all this youth stuff is rubbish......and everything was better in the old days....

Oh really. Well here is a just a quick selection..... Martin Freeman from the Office Ricky Gervais from the Office James Corden from Gavin and Stacey Olivia Coleman from 2012/Mitchell & Webb/Fleabag Julia Davis from Nighty Night Chris O'Dowd/Matt Berry/Richard Ayoade from The IT Crowd Tasmin Greg from Black Books/Green Wing/Friday Night Dinner Peter Capaldi from The Thick of It Joanna Scanlan from Getting On/No Offence Phoebe Waller-Bridge from Fleabag Sally Bretton from Not Going Out I think you need to do a little more research. They are actors. Whether you personally think that "todays" comedy is not as good as the old days is irrelevant. If a show is popular enough and the actors well thought of they will get work and advance their careers. They dont just get cast in these roles by picking a name out of a hat. Over the pond many of the modern day US superstar movie actors will have got their breaks in TV sitcoms. Chris Pratt is one perfect example as is Mila Kunis and Shia LaBeouf who started his work on the back end of the cable networks in Disney Channel shows. Even going back to the alleged "glory days" it was sitcoms (good and bad) which gave a platform for people like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell, George Clooney, Jennifer Anniston and of course the great Robin Williams. I can imagine back then people who weren't fans of Mork and Mindy or Roseanne or Facts of Life or thought Friends was a pile of dung would have also been just as dismissive and critical of such stars. Didn't mean they weren't talented people who could go and hit the big time. Whilst I admit there are some absolutely timeless classics mostly penned by Ronnie Baker - I never go in for this "its was all better back then" nostalgic nonsense. On the Buses is awful. It was back then and is now on repeats. 2 gags repeatedley infinitum across god knows how many seasons. Even when Reg Varney left they could not get it die and dragged it out for a few more episodes. Same concept with Mind your Language, Curry and Chips, Are you Being Served, Love Thy Neighbour..... Its entire premise was hahaha look at the funny foreigner or a bit of pantomime style lusting over some bird with big knockers. Even the 'greats' such as Two Ronnies, Dave Allen, Morcome and Wise have some elements of their work which really really have not aged well. In fact for many re-runs entire segments/dialogue has had to be silenced out or cut completely due to its nature. I'm sure it is a generational thing but one has to concede that times move on. Just because 'modern' stuff is different does not automatically mean its less quality. Just because 'modern' stuff has more swearing does not mean its automatically more offensive than the old days. In fact, compared to some of the subject material from the 70s and 80s the use of the F word or stronger is significantly more acceptable.

A perfect example of what I was referencing earlier. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/whats-on/shopping/not-everyone-happy-meadow-halls-18730247 If companies don't challenge people not wearing them.........they complain. When they do start challenging people for not wearing them...... they complain.

If they had a reasonable suspicion a customer was obtaining and using the supply without paying as required by the law - they would yes. They would also be perfectly entitled to send non-payers as many threats and demands for money as they like until the debt is cleared. They can, have and would be entitled to litigate against such person and obtain relevant court orders. Does the DVLA use check who is driving untaxed vehicles and use enforcement officers ?h What is your point? Stop trying to make excuses and justify law breakers. It's disgraceful.

Where does it say anything about them directly challenging shoppers? They say they will provide information and limit numbers by managing queues, will be giving audio reminders and setting up cleaning stations and staff offering extra assistance. They even go as far to directly state that government 'mandatory' rules have some exemptions. I say again, the onus is on us customers - where exactly does it say in they will be responsible for challenging customers. I certainly wouldn't allow my staff to do it either. It would be opening them to a multitude of risks.

Why would they get involved? People have hidden disabilities, not everyone can wear a mask for various reasons. What right does a store manager have prying into the personal business of one of their customers. Do you really think that some checkout operator or stock stacker on minimum wage is going to put themselves at risk by confronting customers entering the store. There is only so much that any business can do. Signage, provision of supplies for sanitation and possibly some gentle reminders but that's it. The rest is down to us taking our personal responsibility for ourselves not the police the others

So does the gas company and water board and telephone company and local council and electricity board and vehicle licence authority too. What exactly is your point? If nan wants the service of live broadcast television then she needs to pay the annual licence fee as the law dictates. A law as set, debated and passed by our democratically elected politicians. Everybody else gets on and pays it and just being old does not automatically entitle someone to a free lunch. Given the amount of time you spend obsessing over this subject you really should join the Daily Mail - they hate the BBC nearly as much as you do.

Just want to pick up one point. "Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away. Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline. Masks were about reducing speed of the outbreak and avoid swamping health services . For all I very much support their use - I think it's important that people remember that masks don't mean immunity the virus. We all need to accept that is is our "normal" now and will be for some time.

Oh really. Well, isn't he someone who has had the virus, recovered from it, accepted he is overweight and his said he's going to do something about it. In the meantime he has proposed wider government methods to encourage others in similar situations to do the same. Looks an awful lot like taking personal responsibility to me. But hey, let's not let your obvious anti Tory bias get in the way of facts.

You are completely missing the point again. Firstly it is perfectly acceptable to eat a burger every now and then. It is meat in bread. That's it. The healthy initiative scheme is not some translation into everyone must eat rabbit food for eternity. It is about the amount that gets shovelled into ones face. Someone popping into McDonald's occasionally to treat themselves to a burger and milkshake is not exactly a major problem when compared to someone who potentially will eat such food 3-4 times a week every week. It goes back to my previous analogy of people who go into supermarkets and ignore healther products. Secondly, as I'm sure you know, besides the two nicely cherry-picked companies you reference on your post there are over 120 other businesses on the government scheme including coffee shops, hotel resorts, pub companies and service station chains. They include well-known oriental restaurants, sushi bars, sandwich shops and in-store cafes. People are free to go and choose any of these businesses they so want and choose any item of the menu as healthy or not as they wish to make it. It all boils down to that wonderful thing called personal responsibility.