ECCOnoob

I would agree with you on taxation. There are too many holes in the law but in that case I don't understand the criticism at the people earning the money - the criticism should be aimed at the governments not doing enough about it As for your second part I don't see the reason for a cap. Personally I wouldn't stop at all. I would aim to earn whatever I can earn until I choose to either stop working or its all spent.

Yes of course he earns millions. He owns the company. He put in the investment, he founded it and he took the risks which resulted in a highly successful global organisation which employs 840,000 people. Those people are not "paid peanuts" as you say, they are paid what the market rightly or wrongly dictates their job role is worth. It goes back to the point I made earlier, in this free society of ours - any one of those lower paid employees can set their own path for advancement. They can forge their own career with whatever skills to aim to earn the most money they can. I don't think there are many people who enter the job market and really choose to be in the same lower level position from day one to retirement. Everybody has some considerations of advancement either in the same organisation or by choosing to take that risk and go and find a job elsewhere or even start their own business. Yes of course there will be always people who are cruelly overlooked or suffer unfortunate circumstances halfway through their career path or simply can't make it due to ill health but that is a way of life for a lot of things.

So where would the cap be then? What line in the sand gets crossed where a deemed "acceptable" rich person suddenly become an "unacceptable" rich person with too much money. Are you advocating a point where a business must stop being successful in some show fairness and give all the others a chance to catch up? Would you propose some cap on how much wealth someone can accumulate before the government mandatory takes it or redistributes it? I can't imagine any of that is going to incentivise people to take risk, invest and succeede and then we need to think how that would impact on the wider economy and our position as a free and democratic society. What point would such actions we bordering the line with what others would deem a communist state.

Just to clarify I know you didn't mean unfair to rich persons. The point I'm trying to make is that this whole thing about who is "being taken advantage of" is arguable. To make a lot of money people take advantage of others all the time. It's business. We all do it in our own workplaces all the time. We do it whenever we are trying to get a pay rise or a promotion or when having to face redundancy.

I can see that. People's expectations are always wildly off the mark and I still believe there is an element of jealousy creeping in. The harsh fact is that exploitation and expense of others is the realities of business. Successful businesses keep one step ahead of the game by being first and best in the market for the cheapest or even minimal outlay. Simple as that. At some point along that journey it is inevitable that there will be elements of distastful behaviour. That includes extracting every last drop for as cheap as possible out of your assets and labour and resources. That will also include exploitation by making sure that you are doing every tactical, strategic and any other legal loophole you can find to make sure that you get ahead of the game both financially and in the market. That is how people become billionaires in the first place. It's a step by step process of learning how to firstly make money, keeping successful to maximise it and then taking every step you can to ensure you keep it. Of course there has to be some control of fairness and equality and public duty and philanthropy but that doesn't make money and at some point the ruthlessness side kicks in. I don't care what people try and portray about themselves. We all have that side in our personality and to be successful and make money you have to show it. Myself and my colleagues have often had this conversation in the office. As with many work places we are all in it together. We are all there getting along. We are a band of brothers a close-knit community networking and supporting the rest of our profession. But if the proverbial hit the fan we will be jumping all over everyone to be on top. Furthermore, being born into money or suddenly acquiring it through winnings doesn't automatically mean that they have an easy ride either. There are plenty of cautionary tales of those who had it all and then lost it.

It "had its moment" after the first one was completed. It was a well thought gesture which lost all meaning as soon as it became a weekly ritual which continually degenerated into attention seeking, one-upmanship, social media grandstanding and celebrity endorsements. I'm glad interest has been lost and hope that people follow the lead of its creator and bring it to an end.

Let's not forget this dithery old pensioner flouting the rules. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11726016/jeremy-corbyn-not-social-distancing-birthday-snap/ I look forward to seeing the press hounding him outside the front door and Piers Morgan spitting venom all over Twitter and morons waving placards as he walks down the street and the house demanding he resign immediately and his leader publicly condemning him for his actions....... Wishful thinking though.

Absolute nonsense. How can it be right to let one direction of traffic on the same junction flow quite freely and the other direction of traffic be forced to leave artirial road go up a narrow street, compete with cars already queuing to get into John Lewis car park go up a second narrow street competing with shoppers, students and boozers on the slim payments of Division Street. How is that possibly creating less traffic pollution and hazard than simpy allowing both directions to freely flow between Charter Square and Furnival Gate which is what it was designed for. Isn't the reality that they didn't have the balls to close it off altogether because they knew the owners of certain departments stores and car parks would raise hell - so instead they have bodged it with a lazy crude solution which now just causes havoc to the surrounding smaller streets.

Yes I do actually. I think for businesses about to decide whether or not to invest huge amounts of money into a location, access and public transport is high on the agenda. Even more so when we are not just talking about offices but we are also talking about retailers for whom the question of how people get to their doors and where their footfall is coming from is absolutely vital considerations. These are not issues to be sniffed at.

I'm totally lost about what this is supposed to achieve. As far as I understand it most of Pinstone Street is already closed off to general traffic and the only vehicles allowed are public transport or authorised access such as deliveries. At the moor end, thanks to the council's ingenious design of blocking off one side of the road to furnival gate - traffic is left with absolutely no choice but to go onto Pinstone Street and then are shunted around Burgess Street towards John Lewis. Unless the council are going to completely redesign the access to John Lewis's car park traffic will still have no option but to go that way. The council are certainly not going to upset John Lewis - in fact they will bend over backwards and think of England to make them happy because they are petrified of losing the only prime asset we have got in the city centre the meadowhall doesn't. To me if these proposals are accurate it seems the council has got to try and redesign the entire road network from Charter Square to John Lewis car park and change at least a dozen or more bus routes which will no longer go through the prime artery of the city centre shopping areas. I can't see that going down well with the retailers and brands who have chosen to invest millions on the council's heart of the city developments. Nor do I imagine will it be particularly pleasing to HSBC and CMS and Radisson hotels who have signed a dotted line to move into their brand new shiny buildings. "....Oh sorry lads we're just going to cull the bus routes and transport access that goes to your front doors..." All seems very odd to me.

In the world of television and media £310,000 is nothing. Just think of the millions and millions of pounds that get spent obtaining football rights or access to sporting events. I personally find watching a load of primadonnas kicking a bag of wind around a grass pitch less entertaining than staring at the wall but it clearly attracts viewers and is popular. I will say the same about Eurovision. Personally I quite like the silliness of it. Its tradition and good for a laugh especially after a few glasses of something. Whilst it might not be to everybody's taste it certainly attract massive viewing audiences I suspect more than makes a return on investment.

I like them both. They just have very different styles. One went for the full on shiny suit game show host and the other has brought some desperately needed quicker pacing and slightly more blunt handling of contestants. To me it works. The old show definitely became stale and if it was was going to come back, needed a revamp. The shorter series and condensed approach stops me from becoming bored.

Something strange here. The alleged thief must have known about the presence of the account, had access to or was given the card and had knowledge of the pin number in order to withdraw cash. As Yosser has pointed out. It is worth considering whether they did actually have a right to the money (even if the OP doesnt agree with that) and see if there is some form of civil action that could be pursued. Is this mystery "person" another member of the family? they must have got that information somehow which is not an easy task for a complete stranger. In my experience banks and the police don't treat these things lightly IF there is a clear theft but from my reading of this thread that doesn't seem to be the case.

Only another 200 + television channels and the entire internet. Apart from that you're right. Personally, until the day comes when there is some mandatory government sanction for This Morning to be beemed directly into my eyeballs I will go out of my way to find something else to watch other than "Holly" and "Phil". Over the years they have degenerated what was a dull, average but passive watchable magazine show into the tabloid trash Holly vs Phil ego competition. The presentation style is so fake it's painful to watch. But I cannot deny it attracts massive viewing figures and as I have pointed out before popularity always wins - so clearly I am in a minority.

For every porridge there is a Going Straight or Magnificent Evans. Even looking back at some of the two ronnies reruns and you can wince slightly. Don't think it's ever that simple no matter who the talent.

If they did that you will be very very disappointed. There is a reason all these shows which you are personally dismissing are so popular. You don't think commercial television is so stupid but they will put our content that doesn't make the money We in a very different world to the four channels we have in the 80s. There are now hundreds and hundreds of channels available and different platforms in which people get entertained. It's all well and good picking out a handful of great shows from the 70s and 80s but what about all the dross that you have deliberately chosen to overlook. Whether you like it or not times have moved on.

I simply do not believe that anybody is so dense as you are making out. What the hell you talking about it - it does not have to be picked. Of course it bloody does. Someone's entire livelihood is based upon making a profit from their efforts in growing that produce. Those food items that they have produced then becomes the first step in a huge chain of food supply. There are manufacturers who will use that raw ingredient to produce a whole range of items which we consumers will be expecting to be able to purchase. There are wholesalers, catering services, food vendors, and other retailers who need that produce to fulfill their own business demands and earn their own livelihoods. Just how exactly do you think the supermarket shelves get filled and food products that we are queuing up to buy get made. Feeding the nation isn't done by magic pixie dust and fairy farts. Just take 2 seconds to look at the bigger picture. You are talking absolute nonsense.

You complained about exactly the same thing in June last year. If you knew the program was a repeat what did you think the difference was going to be? It was not like Parkinson was going to be re-edited. Good job resurrecting your own dead thread though 🙄

Sainsbury's has provided facility to sanitize trolleys for weeks now.

That's pretty much spot on, and to be frank, that's entirely why they can offer 'free' banking services. I know people moan about it but I bet a vast majoroty wouldn't really want to go back to the days of having to pay a bank upfront to use even their most basic of services. If anyone wants to have even a slight taste of what it would be like just have a look at the kind of account thresholds and charges that a private banking service such as Coutts or Raphael's has. Imagine that boiled down to a high street level. To the OP: the problem with a question like yours is that you are going to get no definitive answers. I personally have no problems with NatWest but wouldn't touch HSBC with a barge pole. I'm sure many disgruntled ex NatWest customers will have a very different opinion. It's also useful to be aware as to who owns what. For example Lloyds does own Halifax and the Bank of Scotland but that is not the same as the Royal Bank of Scotland which is an entirely different organisation and has control over NatWest and Ulster Bank. Last time I checked Yorkshire and Clydesdale and Virgin money banks are owned by the Australians. Bank of Ireland is in charge of the Great British post office banking services and Spanish owned Santander seemed at one point to have taken over everybody. As others have said, some of the lesser known New kids on the block, particularly the online-only ones are a breath of fresh air but always be wary and research thoroughly as they too can have problems as the the almost newly opened Metrobank is finding out the hard way.

His potential profit. As Shepcanon says, his intention was all about how much money he could get. I'm sure I read another article on the same story whereby he even admitted that his intention was to get it online and sell it for $70 a bottle. That well and truly came back to bite him in the backside when eBay or whatever changed their rules and he was suddenly lumbered with it all. Well done the supermarket manager for holding his ground. Customer bought it customer has to deal with it. I would normally be the first to champion the world of commerce and business entrepreneurs but there's no way I could ever support this guy for trying it on like that. Particularly when such selfish actions was blatantly depriving others in the middle of a global crisis. To be honest I'm quite satisfied that our selfish shopper has had a harsh lesson which businesses have to face everyday. Not every decision is a successful one and sometimes companies are lumbered with stock that they cannot or will not sell.

For me personally not really. It has never sat comfortably with me that large numbers of people still in modern society, with all the knowledge that has been gathered, put their faith in some (IMO mythical) supreme being and the (alleged) teachings of a storybook rather than putting focus in the belief in oneself to make your own decisions, sort your own problems, and forge your own path. I find it even more uncomfortable and even to the point of anger that religious groups still have influence on our laws, society and parliamentary systems.

Yeah yeah blah blah it was all big conspiracy against him. Its was all their fault that the investigations were hampered.... Talk about trying to make excuses. This internal document and the "leaking" of it has already raised significant eyebrows. Silly old duffer just wont go away quietly will he. "....in for me... in for me.. They all got it in for me...." screamed Kenneth.

A bullet point list produced on a blog site on behalf of the dubious and controversial JVL fringe group is hardly hard evidence of his efforts is it. Neither is there any effort in signing a few generic and meaningless motions and making a few public statements against the opposition party. I would also add that JVL attracted criticism from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish leadership council and Momentum itself. Not exactly the best source to be using to debate this issue.

I don't see the connection. Unless there is some misinterpretation and the word barbecue is changing from being a simple cooking device to an event - then it's nothing to do with the spread of coronavirus. If I say "I am having a pint" that simply could mean I am at my home drinking out of a glass. Doesn't automatically mean I'm illegally going to the pub. It's clear that these wonderful quirks of the English language are making more confusion. Officials need to be very careful as to how they word announcements. I obviously know what the meaning of the message is and what they are trying to avoid but there has to be some caution as to how things are delivered or people are always going to find loopholes.