ECCOnoob

I think I might wait a while before I start wetting my knickers with excitement. This talk about "building it over the Pennines" as if it's as easy as chucking a few rails down...... Good grief they couldn't even build so much as a dual carriageway between two major cities without a chain of massive failures, protests groups, controversy and massive expenditure. Unless they are going to somehow conveniently squeeze it along the middle of the M62 I'll be very surprised if this plan comes off in full. Even more so now that the world is changed and that demand for business travel is likely going to be in decline. Much as I hate to admit it, because I was one of the few people that wanted this thing, I suspect it's going to be an uphill battle for any of it now.

That I would definitely agree with. There seems to be an alarming lack of mention of this persons family, friends, neighbours, support workers, social workers, police, medical professionals..... Somebody must have known what was going on. What was happening and why is this not being explained. As I said earlier people don't just starve to death. There is a chain of events here with apparent failures that go well beyond simply blaming Boris as lex luthor seems to think.

What is this fiasco you are speaking of? We don't know how this individual died. We know nothing about circumstances or history leading up to it. We don't even know categorically that it happened. All we have is some one line hearsay from MP during a committee and a newspaper report on the fact that she talked about it. Where is your evidence to category prove that the government and their policies are directly responsible for all the circumstances leading up to this person allegedly starving to death? If you don't have any then it's all just speculation and you are showing disgraceful behaviour by using the death of this person without any factual context as some stick to further your anti Tory agenda. This conversation is about the death of an individual. There are questions to be answered which are not. There are massive gaps in factual information which are not being addressed and generic whining about the government is not going to cut it.

It's amazing isn't it. As I have said in my post earlier some people are so ingrained in their 'roots' and so deluded as to their perception with the wider public - they would continually self harm rather than strategically adapt and diversify so they can win elections.

Just to add a quick addendum to your post. I have just had a quick look at everyone's favourite unreliable encyclopaedia source. Since the 1920s to the date of the next scheduled election there has been a conservative prime minister ruling this country for 61 years compared to merely 36 years of a labour one. That of course includes a Tory continuing to remain a prime minister during the wartime and 2010 to 2015 coalitions. If this was a business meeting the figures would speak for themselves as to what the wider public prefer and what the business would need to do to attract them and get their numbers up. Elections are pretty much the same and I find it quite amusing when the hardcore grassroots corbynistas 'proper' labour would rather self harm than win elections.

Nobody is denying that. The question is why?

what good did that "surge" in membership do for them.... yes of course they strode into power and smashed the election........ oh wait

I would wholly agree. Despite what the momentum campaigners and deluded corbynist disciples like to claim I don't think there is anywhere near the level of support in the wider electorate that they think there is. Any fool can preach to the converted in that's exactly what they did. As soon as they had to to come down on something that might upset the core support even if it was for the benefit of winning over the wider electorate they failed. They wedged themselves firmly on the fence and nobody knew what they stood for. They just kept on failing and when they did they became more and more entrenched in their philosophy that they are right and everyone else is wrong. If Starmer a was in charge during the election we could have had a completely different result. Probably not to win but certainly a good chance at getting a hung parliament. Corbyn and his proteges were simply too toxic, too polarising. Let's be blunt he didn't really want the job in the first place.

Connected to this tragedy because......?

Completely agree. That's why I hate this sort of lazy half-assed shock journalism and people who jump all over it to further their cause without considering the full context.

No they don't. There is a chain of events leading up to that. There are a multitude of reasons to be explored whether through self neglect, abandonment, self-harm, negligence by others, institutional failure.... I don't work in a world of "...just because"

You have summed up my point really. This is the problem – we don't know whether he had a computer. We don't know whether he tried to register. We don't know whether he was on that vulnerable person list. The MP certainly hasn't said in her quick and punchy soundbite and the newspaper hasn't bothered to actually investigate and do their jobs as journalists. What this news story is with it's wonderful bold headline is a bit of "oh dearism" and "isn't it tragic". They don't really care because they still get to sell the papers and turn a few people's heads and the majority of the public can't do anything about it because they have no facts so they just do a collective shrugging of their shoulders or maybe at best a bit of slacktivism sympathy by doing a few retweets of the story. The worst thing about this, as happens many times before, is that the actual "story" now is about the MP talking about it not the actual incident itself. No wonder things constantly fade into obscurity when we've got a journalists who choose to do their jobs by 'phoning it in' stroking their opinionated egoes rather than getting off their backsides and doing their factual reporting work.

There are a lot of questions to be asked here. The Independent has seemingly completely failed to ask any of them despite the attention-grabbing headline. There is barely more than one sentence related to this this tragic incident with no context or background or follow up. The rest of the article is nothing more than a load of quotes out of context, opinionated commentary and general narrative about disability issues. Where's the factual detail. What was his disability? How severe was it? Did he have learning difficulties? Did he require care and support? Did he register for any of the supermarket deliveries? Was he able to physically access any supermarket nearby to him? Did he even attempt to do so? Did he ask for help from his neighbours or family or other acquaintances? Did you try to raise any complaints with the local authorities when circumstances became dire? Who or what organisations were responsible for protecting him? What actions did they do? What are their explanations? Something doesn't add up. People don't just "starve" to death. I get your points about no coverage but to be fair, a news organisation can only report when they are informed about things. Clearly the indy has a story but their completely poor journalism and lack of any factual detail has given people no choice but to ignore it. The story doesn't tell us anything.

That is not what I'm doing at all so get back in your box. I'm trying to give you an example of the realities. It is not always that simple. Laws are very complicated and there are lots of potential conflicts when recommendations get thrown out in a report.

Yes. But are the recommendations reasonable and proportionate to the issues? Do they reflect the needs of the wider society when having regard to the overall picture? Are they economically or timing feasible? Does their application result in counter implications which may also need to be considered? Do they create conflict with the current bindings of laws and statutes? It's not always that simple. Let's take an example in the world of business. It is all very admirable and quite right to try to increase the number of BAME in high profile positions but what if that results in recruiters and human resources positively discriminating applicants to get the numbers up. Such actions are illegal within the equality act 2010.

I disagree. I think it is very relevant. If some people are choosing to use this thread for a bit of anti-tory bashing by accusing them of not doing enough to tackle inequality and racism then I think it's a very fair question to be asked as to who people think would do better. People are welcome to apply criticism for the lack of action taken to tackle the issues but they need to be prepared to also put their neck on my line and say exactly who and how it should be improved.

I'm slightly confused as to what exactly they are looking into. We already have an Equalities Commission ever since the introduction of the Act. We already have multiple non-government organisations, charities, subdivisions and quangos. What the hell have they been doing all this time? Besides it's not like I have seen anyone in the government disagreeing with the subject of the protests just the methods. If the argument instead is that voices are not being heard loud enough then surely some blame needs to be pointed at those organisations listed above and questions should be raised as to what they are doing for their money. All seems to me like Lammy wanting to get his profile out there again. Must be at least 5 minutes since he was last Twitter trending.

There isn't really any opportunity to create anything 'better' to put out. We are all in lockdown and you'll be surprised how lengthy and complex any form of television production takes. Until the situation changes broadcasters have to make a tough decision between endless repeats or this. At the end of the day the program was made for a specific purpose which has now been completely wiped out. The money has been spent so at least it's better to show it rather than everyone complaining that they wasted of licence fee money on something that was immediately canned. To be honest I never really get this supposed "prestige" regarding Saturday night viewing. It might have once been a prime time slot but nowadays most people are either out, going out or occupied by a thousand and one other distractions. It's clear that the big variety and entertainment shows are slowly dying a death. Even the cash cow that was the X factor is only just limping along. Let's face it, even back 20-years ago Saturday night primetime entertainment may have drawn millions of viewers but it was pretty crap. If ever you have a pang of nostalgia for the so-called "glory days" of Saturday night television just have a look on YouTube at shows like you bet, Noel's house party, blind date, pets win prizes, game for a laugh, stars in their eyes, Dame Edna's neighbourhood watch.... Revel in the cheap and cheesiness of it all. Cringe at the wobbly sets, gaudy lighting, over the top graphics and slimy hosts. The rose tint soon fades away and you realise that in reality it's wasn't actually that good. We just didn't have any alternatives.

"Find all their stuff flogged off" You are talking as if it will be a surprise to the owner. It will be very clear in their contract with the storage place that if rent is unpaid and/or goods are left unclaimed for a specific period items will be sold. Just think of it as any other kind of consumer contract. ....Non-payment may lead to seizure or forfeit of the goods..... .... You may lose your home if you do not keep up repayments on the mortgage brought against it....... It's pretty standard stuff really.

How many applied? Have you got the figures from the Office of Public Appointments to advise what ethinicity and socio-economic background each of the applicants head?. Do you have a copy of the consultation committee notes setting out what the criteria for filtering the nominations was? Do you have the decision record and reasons for rejecting each nomination? Figures please otherwise your post is meaningless. PS: You might also want to get a clue as to how to Board is actually appointed before you start with your "blaming" solely on BBC management. Come on, if you are going to do a job - do it properly.

......of course you had access to every single CV supplied and observed every single interview and was recording every aspect of the shortlisting and of course applied your skills of mind reading to know exactly the reasoning for the decision made..... Maybe you should have applied yourself since you know it all.

Yes we know - that's the point. Somehow the McCanns keep getting their case dragged on and on and on

That's one of way of looking at it. Critics may say they have attempted to cash in on the murder/disappearance /other tragedy and become "celebrity" victims using their educated and privileged positions to manipulate organisations and the media. Clearly they have continually got attention for which victims from, let's say, a poorer and less educated background wouldn't get. It's not unreasonable to question what is the magic spark that gets some victims a PR agent and lots of press coverage and others virtually ignored. What is the formula that makes the reactors and commenters of these horrendous circumstances quite open judge one set of parents as "victims of a tragic mistake for which they can never forgive themselves" and another set of parents as "disgusting scumbag lowlife negligent people who should be hanged".

That's the unfortunate vicious circle that companies like that face. Declining customers = no money to invest in their assets = further decline in customers ....round and round it goes. Companies like Shearings could never compete with the the draw of cheap package holidays abroad frequented by the masses but nor could they provide the accommodation standard and service expected by the more discerning well-heeled, sophisticated customers who chose to keep their holidays in England. Absolute rock and a hard place. Now there is potential that more and more people will be staying at home for the holidays it's too late. Just the same as other "traditional" struggling chains such as Britannia, Quality, Thistle and Royal British hotels their premises are simply not up to the standard that younger modern consumers demand. When people can get a night at Premier Inn which, although soleless and absolutely clinical, they know will be absolutely clean and uniform no matter what part of the country they go for £29, £40 £60 - how on earth are are companies like Shearings properties, with their 'character', mismatch of rooms, wobbly fittings and complimentary pubic hair on the kettle (yes that actually happened to me) ever going to compete when they have to charge at least double a night just to cover their costs. We consumers vote with our feet and we are all fickle buggers with no loyalty.

Patents already expire after 20 years so people do have limitations on how much they can make before everyone else can just copy their ideas. To add on a financial caps as well would just kill off any incentive to develop. Why on earth would any company spend sometimes millions or tens of millions on developing and testing and launching their product only for their earnings opportunity to be stifled. Also who are you or anyone else to judge that someone has made "enough money". What is this definitive line that seems to be crossed here. What if that billionaire is creating mass employment and huge contributions to a nation's economy. Does all that just get tossed aside because they have reached a certain level?