ECCOnoob

You do realise it is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily at the same time. It is exactly the same concept as people in a supermarket who choose to walk past and ignore the fruit and vegetable aisle and instead fill their trolley from the processed meat and and confectionery aisle. Where and how people are consuming food is not the issue. It is what and how much they are consuming that is the important point. The government has brought in a very important measure to try and reduce the severe impact which massive closures across the leisure sector caused. Now, as per usual people are deliberately misinterpreting the message and using it as some stick to do a bit of anti-tory bashing.

But what is the solution? They are popular because millions of people around the globe like their product and use them. They didn't become the market leaders and most profitable companies in the world by accident. Us citizens have had a hand in that. They were first to market with something we wanted then became the standard for all that followed. It's clear there are plenty of social media website options which are all basically just a pretty front-end to a boring database - but you have to ask yourself why we the public choose to only use a handful of them. There are hundreds of options available for a type of mobile telephone but you have to ask yourself why when you walk into a phone shop every single manufacturer and every single brand and all look spitting image of the latest iPhone design. It's just a sea of anonymous black rectangles and if you weren't looking carefully you would bearly notice whether you were holding a Huawei, Galaxy, Motorola or a proper iPhone. Every major supermarket, department store or catalogue shop has an online offering. Millions of products in a range of prices available at the click of the mouse and we could choose to go to any of them for our wares - but where are most people going into when they want to order? I have raised this before on other threads. Whilst there may be controls by the government on monopolies or limitations on global access at some point that is going to cause some real friction with free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Should these companies stop being so successful and deliberately harm themselves to allow some balance and other smaller companies in other areas of the world catch up? Should there be restrictions on us consumers from choosing to use such companies and perhaps be mandatory forced to use an alternative supplier in our home nation? Should there be tighter internet restrictions, following perhaps the China model, and bar any access to these companies if outside of your home nation? Even mentioning controls like that is starting to fall into that oppression that us westernised society is supposed to be against.

So in a nutshell the UK is scored higher than the OECD average on all but one element of the tests. Well done uk. Glad to see a bit of positivity against the endless doom and gloom, whinging and criticism purported by certain people and media outlets. Clearly this nation is not so bad after all. So the one negative subject is income. Where, as do many other countries recorded, the net monies fall below the OECD average amount with the exception of the USA. In turn the USA also has the massively higher gap between richest and poorest. So what does that tell us? Should there be such an obsession of having the best and highest levels of net income? Or does having such a level of income result in some counter effect which people should be cautious of.

That may be so. But that's the problem with most of these covid statistics. They are always accompanied with a load of caveats which are completely meaningless without full context. However that doesn't stop people, including many on this very forum, cherry-picking and using such numbers to further their agenda. The fact remains that if there is a perceived increase its still increase - when that happens, what exactly is a government supposed to do? As I said earlier, if there was a increasing number and they didn't do anything the public would be slagging them off for their inactivity..... The government does something and now there is a concern and criticism that it was a knee jerk reaction to an increase that didn't actually exist.....

From what I saw that's pretty much what they did. It was certainly all over the news broadcasts and websites as soon as it was announced. I know the tabloid media loves to get the human angle on these types of stories, but in my opinion if "Gav from Bolton" didn't know about it until the few hours before then that unfortunately is their issue. Perhaps if said people stopped getting their "news" from social media and actually paid attention to what is going on they will be in a better position to react when things change. After all the government has made no secret that when they started to ease lockdown they could implement it back in place very rapidly on a local or national level. They have certainly not tried to deny that this virus has gone away and have repeatedly told people that they need to take precautions and follow rules if and when they suddenly change. It all flows back into that personal responsibility again. I am sure for the people affected by this partial lockdown it is a disruption. However on the media sources I've read many of them were not following the rules regarding visitors into homes so they've created their own situation.

Well that 'present shower' won the election with a massive majority so..... Anyway the point is that your robust declaring of 'shambolic' and 'incompetent' is up for debate. What exactly is the government supposed to do? They bring in hard and fast rules overnight because of a change of situation with the virus - everybody slags them off for rushed implementation..... They forewarn about a rule change which will be happening over the next couple of weeks and everybody's slags them off for not doing things quick or strong enough..... They start to slowly reopen businesses to try to get people back into work and get the economy moving and everybody slags them off for not caring about people's health and only caring about profits..... They announce they are going to delay the opening of certain sectors as it is not fully safe and everyone slags them off for risking people's livelihoods and restricting people from freely going about their business....... They spend public money trying to prop up or keep certain sectors of industry going and the everyone slags them off whinging about it could fund the NHS or how care workers could have a pay rise...... Businesses collapse and premises shut down and everyone slags them off for not doing enough to save industry or protect jobs...... They bring in a national lock down and everybody slags them off saying it was far too late and was not robust enough or it's all far too excessive and over-the-top and unnecessary..... They pro-actively react to an R increase bringing in a localised lock down on the affected area and everybody slags them off for disrupting lives and not giving any sufficient warning.... Do we see a pattern here. Is it really government incompetence or is it 'people' not knowing what they want, not prepared to adapt, not prepared to take responsibility for themselves and seeking some target to pass on the blame. The reality is there is far more to this than just some lazy stock response blaming the tories.

To clarify, I meant that it should be a matter for the widow and victims to decide on whether they wish to pursue and seek permission for retrial. The key point I was making is that any such decision should be entirely theirs alone. It should be completely without pressure or otherwise forced by lots of disconnected members of the public clicking some online campaign form or a load of opinionated talking heads spewing over social media .

Seemingly when he does implement a rapid and decisive rule change everybody goes mad, slagging him off for making rushed decisions and disrupting people without warning and not giving people sufficient time to prepare...... Now people are complaining that he is bringing in rule changes too slow and not hard enough and not enforcing enough.... Damned if they do. Damned if they don't I don't think the question is "does he know what he's doing?" The question really is do we know what we want and are we prepared to accept it when we get it.....?

I can fully understand that and imagine lots of people have the same opinion. But what concerns me with things like this is facts of law. Exactly what grounds, demonstratable legal inaccuracies and evidence do all the people signing the position have to demand a retrial? I fully appreciate the highly emotional subject under discussion and the disgrace that a serving officer has been killed in such a brutal and despicable way - but this is a point of law which should go far beyond inevitable slacktivism, clicking a few buttons and adding names to a list. Petitions are usually set up for a matter to be debated in parliament if they have enough signatories. However there is a very distinct gap between influence of parliament and judicial independence which for very good reasons needs to be adhered to. Whilst a public show of support is pleasing, in my opinion it should be a simply a matter for the widow and the victims to decide on any retrial not one to be forced upon or heavily encouraged by lots of speculation and uninformed opinion from wider members of the public.

You raise another interesting point there about printing stuff off. That is another thing that is slowly becoming completely obsolete and another reason for the decline in necessity for any physical presence. I must admit I also print off my foreign travel documents and airline tickets because in my mind I can't get over the "just in case" hump. But I always see a significant number of people waving their smartphones over the airport barriers and scanning their online boarding passes. Here in blighty I do exactly the same with train tickets and can't remember the last time I had or needed a printed one. I will leave it for debate whether this is a good or a bad thing. Maybe there is an argument we are becoming far too virtual in our world.... But it is certainly going to be a challenge to stop it now.

Yes and no. I never quite buy the "what about pensioners" type of argument. The internet has certainly been increasingly commonplace in homes for over 20-years. According to 2019 ONS figures whilst 99% of adults up to 44 years old had internet access it still noted that nearly half of over 75s also had to access. The numbers of people who are at such an elderly age they do not have concept of the internet and still have sufficient health and faculty to regularly be booking travel will be interesting. Notwithstanding, even if certain people don't personally have access or use internet services - it is a high probability that they will know someone who can and does. Of course not everyone wants to be forced to use online services but these are businesses and if their majority customers are not using physical shops then perhaps it is arguably fair for them to expect the minority customers to adapt. Like everything else, the travel industry has well and truly been hit by this virus taking some firms to the brink. The last thing they can afford is to be throwing money away on extremely expensive and overstaffed real estate. I have every sympathy for the staff losing their jobs but personally I felt it was inevitable that at least some of the physical travel shops would go. Thomas Cook might just have about limped on under a new owner but they always had a bigger scope and product range to the limited Thomson/TUI.

I would agree with that. There are lots of things, organisations and people on Twitter that I certainly don't like so I don't follow. If I do see something which I clearly disagree with or I'm offended by I have the choice to either ignore it, block it or challenge it. Whilst it is absolutely right that extreme acts of hate speech, abuse or violence should of course be removed, what we are starting to see examples of is anyone in any circumstance who is offended demanding its removal and focusing blame on the social media organisations themselves instead of the actual perpetrator of the alleged offensive remark. That in turn starts a backlash just as extreme with people defending the perpetrator. Round and round it goes creating an ever more toxic environment with both polar opposite opinionators shouting over each other to be the loudest. I'm not always convinced sometimes either side has a moral high ground and that is why, through the benefit of freedom of speech, someone should have a right to say something and another person should have a right to be offended by it. I don't know whether this particular case falls into that category as I have not been following it - however I am always slightly sceptical of these blanket demands for something to be removed by not only people who are offended by a remark/video/show/speech but also, thanks to our hysterical media outlets, lots of people who've never even seen it jumping on the bandwagon. I always find sweeping 'one size fits all' decision-making can be a slippery slope. It's something that YouTube has done recently with sweeping changes to their monetisation rules and algorithm in a OTT knee jerk reaction to a US law change to protect minors from adult content, language or violence. That basically risked every single video which may have adult themes or swearing or 18 + computer games or even certain music aimed for an adult audience potentially being blanket demonetised or censored. Same thing could very easily happen with our social media wear where is thought out blanket changes could reply and information that people actually want or need to know could be swept up and removed just for containing certain trigger words or content irrelevant of any context.

......and such figures will be continuous throughout passage of time until if or when a developed, tested and proven vaccine is found. That's sort of what happens when you have incurable virus outbreak. There is a far more important factor to be considered beyond merely the shock attention-grabbing numbers. How many of those million new cases will actually result in people dying? What is the statistical risk of those infected suffering severe hospitalisation levels as a result? How many of those million new cases will be people who may never suffer noticeable illness at all? Taking reasonable and realistic precautions to try to slow down or even prevent the infection is perfectly well. Applying the quarantine is perfectly well - after all those choosing to go abroad should simply be prepared to accept a risk of sudden change or disruption. The TV tabloids that laughing call themselves news programs might have been sticking on vox pox opinions from 'distraught' Tracy from Grimsby doing lots of blaming of the government - but it's not as if the government hasn't forewarned people. They have been saying for weeks that local or wider lockdown or changes may apply should there be any sudden change of circumstances. Let's face it, if the government didn't do something then people would blame them for lack of action. However the key point is you cannot and shouldn't be stopping people from travelling. The world has to keep turning. There is no current end date for resolution of this outbreak - so just how long do we stay under the bed covers hiding. For all the scary numbers this outbreak is still very much causing fatality to the minority of the global population.

Fair enough. But whatever it was like and whatever the draw back when you were living there - something has got to have changed. There is clearly a reason why JL has decided to close Watford despite leaving open Welwyn Garden City, Reading, High Wycombe and Brent Cross branches. Maybe that Greater London and Home Counties crowd just has too many branches in too little area.

Because.......?

Did you ask the staff or management whilst you were there? Were they working behind screens or had face shields or other protection?

No but he does owe loyalty to his party. A party which, after already been severely damaged by Corbyn's incompetence, stubbornness and questionable behaviour, he has now well and truly thrown back into the mire by opening his mouth. Whatever the legal position that Corbyn 'thought' was right back when he was playing at being a leader - that party position has changed since the appointment of his successor. A successor I would argue who knows a damn sight more about the law than some long-term backbencher whose only real world experience was sorting paper clips out for a union and waving a few placards. The party has made their decision to settle and publicly apologise. The party are free to do so without any input from the old fart because he is no longer in charge. He is a disgrace to be publicly shaming the party that he still wants to actively be part of despite most of those issues arising from his own incompetence and behaviour. All goes back to that courage that he 'supposedly' has. If he doesn't like the decision then he should show some balls, stand down and go independent. The longer he clings on the longer the damage will linger over the entire organisation.

If those family and friends are close enough to the deceased they will already know sufficient information and be well aware as to the circumstances of his death and who to contact and who is next of kin was and how to find out information from appropriate relatives. What a bolshie attitude you have to think that just because someone has deceased their business and personal circumstances can be handed out and discussed by anyone who happens to show an interest. For all you know there may be a multitude of reasons why the deceased didn't want long-distance or extended members of the family knowing what was going off. Maybe there's a reason why the next of kin didn't announce it till certain people or the wider populace.

Again. This is not making sense. What do you mean pretend one? It is stalls outside on the Moor next to the main Indoor market. That's what an outdoor market is. What exactly are you expecting. If your complaint is really down to the fact that Sheffield doesn't have some purpose built covered area for the outdoor market with fixed stallls then quite frankly I think you need to get out more. Does it really matter. Let's be quite honest, the days of these kinds of generic low quality low value markets are in decline anyway. The way both market areas should be focusing is on lower number more selective stalls selling higher quality goods and more artisan products.

Think you are overlooking that the public have already given their judgements on that. The results are black and white on the cult that is corbynism. Perhaps the old man could maybe start his own party. Put his neck on the line and his hand in his pocket. Let's see some of that courage which his deluded supporters insist he is filled with. Let's see him standing there on his own to fully absorb what the wider electorate really think about his policies and his performance -not just his cultish followers. Perhaps then he might actually get the message - providing a court order doesn't finish him off first. Anyone fancy a punt - I'm sure the bookies would be interested.

Absolutely fascinating. I can't wait to hear some of this come out in court and see certain people squirming as their lawyers desperately try to justify it.

It is nothing to do with that. I don't think anyone is dismissing the improvements or denying that they're not a good thing. However what people are quite rightly challenging is the impression that some posters are trying to give, that the simple tarting up of an old shopping centre and shiny bit of new market space has somehow made Barnsley this fantastic, character filled, quaint, individual, superior and highly important place on the retail landscape. It isn't. It is a pleasant small town which has had some good improvements to bring it up to standard with the sort of developments being undertaken in many other identical small towns. That's it. No matter how much people try and raise these ridiculous comparisons the simple truth is that it is always going to be less prestigious than Sheffield because it is a small town with small income and small ideas which cannot be compared to the large city down the road. As for the obsession over who's got the best market I just cannot get my head around it. What is this thing that is somehow massively superior with better atmosphere to that of Sheffield market? Both locations now have new modern market halls. Both locations appear to have exactly the same mix of food retail, cafes and non-food cheap goods. Both locations have their market halls surrounded by new and improved retail units which are slowly filling up. To me it's just another load of one-upmanship and ridiculous meaningless comparisons between locations. I really don't care. As long as areas are improving that is always going to be a good thing no matter where it is. Why is there this constant demand for my dad is better than your dad.

Is absolutely unbelievable. The party, under the desperately needed new management, finally managed to draw a line under this issue and start to rebuild their severely damaged reputation and now he opens his mouth. So Compo has not only inflamed all the discussion, headlines, gossip and speculation all over again but restarted the internal civil war which was a contributor to their spectacular loss last time round. We also have the Brucie bonus that the legal action itself has now been drawn away from the party and onto himself personally. Absolute genius. I knew he had a reputation for being thick but sometimes he excels himself. When will someone put this silly old duffer out to pasture. It's like they want to be in opposition forever. I also find it hilarious that Corbyn's BFF McCluskey has also been opening his gob. Awww perhaps he feels left out and wants a lawsuit too. I'm sure the union members would like to see their fees fritter away on such a folly.

But you raise the key point there. The fact is that kids in bedrooms with a modest amount of knowledge of programming could potentially cause damage if the big conglomerates are completely lax or incompetent with their with their security. Translate that to some kid in a oppressed state or poverty stricken country with an axe to grind and monetary gain and to me it's not beyond the realms of possibility they would have sufficient skill to inflict damage. Looking to the future, the next generation of kids in bedrooms are going to be even more IT savvy with many adults actually running the companies knowing less about IT stuff than the the kids do. I consider myself to be reasonably young. I'm just about scraping within the brackets of what they call a millennial but I didn't have a mobile phone until I was 19. I never touched the laptop until my late 20s and I'd never done such a thing as a video or webcall call until I was over 35. Compare that with my 8-year old nephew with a smartphone, own computer in his bedroom and who has been on more Zoom and Skype calls with his friends then I have in my entire working year. I work with college students who can touch type and input data faster than some of my experienced secretarial staff. I see toddlers bearly out of nappies being entertained and operating iPads. As I say, not all cybercrime and cyber terrorism is from huge shady organisations. Never underestimate the power of an individual with the right motive and incentive. People did all that during the original cold war period. I don't see what's changed. As others said, there's been multiple wars and still conflict going on as we speak.

It's delightful. Where are all the deluded corbynites and momentum morons now. All those who screamed everyone was against him..... It was all lies..... They were all making it up...... It was all a conspiracy by the right wing press .... it was all fake news...... they just wanted to undermine him...... Well there we go. As I always said, he was a leader of a toxic party who himself was short-tempered, bitter and stubborn. He didn't take criticism and was as nasty and devious in his retaliation as any others. Kinder gentler politics my backside.