ECCOnoob

Oh jeez. The Sheffield forum nostalgia fever has infected. Waaaa don't like change. Waaaa I want it back the way it was. Waaaa all this new stuff is horrible..... God sake. The world evolves. Life moves on. Shopping habits have changed. Firstly you ask where all the parking is for the cinema when there are three bloody car parks connected to The Moor itself and at least half a dozen others within a 5-10 minute walk. Secondly you are missing the key point in my earlier post that there are people LIVING around The Moor these days. There are dozens of student residences and private apartment blocks around The Moor these days. Plus at least two more I can think of are currently under construction too. These are people who are likely to walk to these new facilities many are unlikely to own a car at all. Time for you to wake up and realise there is life in the city centre which goes well beyond shopping.

H&M, Next, New Look, JD Sports, Gap, River Island all moved down there. Add on all the new arrivals such as Monki, Weekend, Sketchers, Krispy Kreme, Brew & Bean, Lane7... Have you actually walked on The Moor with your eyes open? I dont know why you are so confident about the failure of the cinema considering the huge number of new accommodation and residences being built around the Moor. Add on several brand new office complexes which will increase footfall by another couple of thousand. Are you sure its not you in the "wrong place".

To a point perhaps, although IMO there will always be a certain level of shopping. The internet doesn't do everything and for some physical shopping is a leisure and social activity more than just the act of buying. I would anticipate that the main evolution of our high street, as is already happening is cities, will be mixed use. Gone are the days of a mile or so long parade of stores to be replaced by a mix of shopping, commerce, leisure and living space even on the same street. Zoning restrictions will certainly become much more blurred

The move has nothing to do with it. The company (and more importantly their Partent, Lewis's Home Retail) has been struggling for nearly a decade. They were always on the brink or in Administration. They closed 22 stores down in 2011 and have always been on a cliff edge. Back in the day it was a nice try for them to place what was essentially a discount, pile it high, sell it cheap into the shell of a 5 floor luxury department store unit, but it was never going to last. In fact, it was totally off precedent to the format of all the other stores in the group. The move into a smaller unit was a smart one, even more so when (despite your claim that its not central) shopping was and still is all moving down towards the Moor area. However, on this occasion we the public have decided that with our wallets that its not to be and the company cannot sustain it. They couldn't even sustain a branch in Chesterfield despite it having far less rent liability and even less competitors around it. Lets face it, what did TJ Hughes on the Moor offer that 1001 other big box discount stores, Department Stores or the internet offer. They weren't even that cheap on some of their items - in fact I used to reguarly find things that I knew I could get for less a couple of doors away. Its a bloody and trying battle for all retailers these days. Times have changed and the retailers have to adapt to our ever changing demands or die. A prime example is right across the road from TJs. Atkinsons. The once stalwart of the posh blue rinse brigade - they know full well that that market has a shelf life so they are constatly freshening up, keeping their stock selective but evolving and more importantly bringing in younger brands into their fashion and homewares to ensure they keep their footfall. Compare that with Debenhams whose store and stock range is huge but looks and feels almost the same as it did in the 1980s Pauldens days.

No actually, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is to keep their legs shut. Strangely that is an issue which all the ecomentalists and do gooders swerve to avoid. Perhaps if Mr and Mrs Thunburg really wanted to stop climate change they should have used a condom instead of sending their sniveling little brat around the world preaching to us about how to live our lives. The entire stock of McDonalds dead cow wouldn't cause a fraction of the damage that overpopulation will. "....'How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood'...." they scream. Yeah, perhaps shouldnt have had them in the first place. So do forgive me if I have the gall to tuck into my meat pie or enjoy a nice chicken sandwich whilst Sharon parades her newborn around the office during her maternity leave.

You can't just broadly say they are "reimbursing for food" Thats not true is it. They are only reimbursing for certain types of food which fit the personal agenda of the company's owner. In turn they are completely unreasonably and unfairly refusing claims for those people who choose to eat other types of perfectly legal, unrestricted and acceptable food products. Perhaps Mr CEO with the huge chip on his shoulder should really put his money where his mouth is. If he wants to be seen as a great do gooder he needs to be properly paying the incentive for people not to eat meat. Excluding one and favouring another simply doesn't cut it when it comes to something as basic as sustenance.

.......but only with the extreme exclusions of food products which are widely accepted and readilly available, instead choosing to limit such food choice to just items that THEY personally deem morally acceptable. You really think that's right for an employer to place such restrictions on their staff - even more so when they are working outside of normal hours and away from their home?

The problem is that the company through its operations is forcing an employee to incur expense to purchase food, denying thier employee freedom of choice in their own eating habits whilst deliberately and unfairly giving preferential treatment to those who choose not to eat meat over those who do eat meat. Quite frankly it stinks of a power trip by the clearly preacy, self righteous owner. Small firm mentality which is just an employment tribunal away from huge embarrassment. As a side note, the fact that a company with just 30 employees has a position titled "Head of Values" really says it all.

There are many number of advantages to the planet by not travelling around the country to flog their business products but Igloo still makes their employees do it. Do you think if an employee refused to travel because of their so called "principles" they would be so supportive. Just jumping on the bandwaggon.

It is clear from some of the self-important replies on the thread that some people are missing the clear principle here. The employees are being forced (in the course of their duties) to undertake work away from their home. They are therefore entitled under an expense policy to be reimbursed for food whilst away. Whilst it is obvious that alcohol, being a controlled substance, can be debarred through an expenses policy I failed to see how any company has a right to tell people what they can and cannot eat. People say there is no discrimination here but I would like to see that tested in a tribunal or court. I would like the firm to actually set out why they think it's perfectly acceptable to deny the expense claim for a ham sandwich when they are are willing to pay an expense claim for a cheese sandwich. Both are perfectly legal items and readilly available for any member of the public to purchase without restriction. It is clear it is a small firm who has had the great fortune of their current workforce all having the same mindset and acceptance of the rule. I can guarantee that a firm as large as my company with thousands of employees bwould not get away with that, in fact there will be a riot with the employees if they even tried to control their free choice on something as basic as food. Igloo may well be cocksure and self-righteous right now but tick tock tick tock. First employee that goes against it and tries to bring your claim and I reckon the situation will change. It may even be sooner than that - social media and Google reviews is a powerful weapon.

He did declare the interest correctly. The only reason for all the desperate mud raking is the thick Labour party who are choosing not to understand what it means To be frank I will have thought the Labour party have got other more pressing priorities to be focusing on right now. Pity they are so far buried in the sand that they can't see it. Just their usual behaviour of picking the easy targets and not actually tackling the real issues that they should be. Absolute party of failures. They all know what their REAL problem is and nobody has the balls to deal with it. They are an embarrassment the opposition bench.

Oh right so they should do nothing and just wait for it to happen then shall they?? What a moronic comment. Of course the city centre is a target. It's an area of major commerce where thousands of people flock to and walk around every single day. Meadowhall will already have vast amounts of anti-terrorism measures in place. It would have been built into the designs and operational procedures from day one. Besides, attacks don't just happen in big fancy shopping centres you know. The last one what's on Streatham high Street for god's sake. That was hardly a locaction of vast wealth or importance was it.

Whilst my employment law knowledge is pretty rusty and I will be happy to be corrected by my fellow legal colleagues - surely there has to be legalities at play here. Client functions and food provided directly by the employer is one thing but if that employer is sending their staff out on regular trips away from their usual workplace and particularly overnight stays I am pretty sure that there are clear laws about such employee being able to claim back their expenses for meals. It is certainly pretty arguable that alcohol may not be entitled within any expense policy but I really find it difficult to believe that they have any legal right to debar an employee who is forced to work away from home from freely choosing whatever category of food they wish to eat. Just imagine a scenario if this company had an employee who was extremely fussy eater and chose to only ever eat Big Macs. Is it really feasible that company will be so stuck to their vegan/veggie principles that the employee would be left with no choice but to fund their own food or starve. I'm certainly very interested to see a test case on this and will love to see how the employer would hold their ground.

I think the important point is that nothing stopped the clearly left leaning Daily Mirror or Guardian from printing their own free commuter paper. They could have chosen to do so anytime they wanted. My concern is why a political party is suggesting taking responsibility for producing such a thing. Where is the funding going to come from? At best it will be membership fees at worst it would be tax payers. Neither of which are an unacceptable situation. Add on the extremely murky area of legislation and regulation about a political party directly producing a distributed newspaper and you open up the doors to all sorts of problems. Talk about missing the bigger picture. No wonder they are doing so dire. Is that really the most important issue they need to focus on right now. It's bonkers.

Ah yes. A typical detailed and we'll put counter argument there. I'm more than aware now what you are and I'm not prepared to waste anymore of my time.

So is the BBC's but you seem to be complaining about paying that despite CHOOSING to use its services.

Well dont pay for it then. Nobody is forcing you. If you have been continuing to pay the licence fee when you dont have to that's your own stupid fault. Simple solution. Dont watch broadcast television services and you dont have to pay for a licence. The law is very clear. Maybe if you had put a fraction of the effort into finding out basic facts like that as you have with your clearly anti-bbc anti-public sector ranting you could have saved a lot of money.

You might be thinking it but you will be completely inaccurate with your assumption.

Like LBC??? - you seriously trying to compare a single radio station which is already owned by global media corporation to the vast multi-platform multi-channel and multi jurisdiction operations under the remit of the BBC. What the hell are you talking about. It's nothing like the same comparison. Unless you have a copy of Steve Wright's contract obligations you have no idea what parts of his own program he directly has influence upon. Even if he doesn't choose his own music - so what? The money earned by him is derived from how much people are prepared to pay for his talent. Brad Pitt and George Clooney don't write and produce the movie that they get paid to star in do they? Doesn't stop the paying public from wanting to see THEM not some behind the scenes staff does it. As for the rest of your guff about duplication - you completely fail to appreciate it us viewers and listeners that want that. You can't have regional programs and regional radio stations presented by a single person in a single location. Commercial stations are already tying that "networked" way of delivery and received much criticism for it from us very public. As a perfect example our own Hallam FM which only appears to have 1 to 2 shows a week which are actually broadcast from their Sheffield studio. The rest of the schedule is streamed in from Manchester or London or anywhere else where they feel convenient. Hardly great local content is it? Look at the fuss created over Look North and the supposed bias between the amount of Leeds stories vs Sheffield ones. Are you really trying to say that we would prefer an even more centralised approach to save money? Of course there are multiple presenters for news and weather across the network there has to be - how else do you think it's possible to get forecasts and bulletins delivered across numerous channels at different times and sometimes even in in different languages. It's all about the service that us public expect. We can't have it both ways. Yes of course there can be cuts to be made and I'm sure that this government will put pressure on the BBC to do so. However we have to face facts about whether we want a truly complete public broadcaster as we seem to demand or we lose it and are left with no option but the wholly commercialised and dumbed down ITV network. Let's see how many local radio stations they would be prepared to set up and run, how many religious services and educational programs would they broadcast, how many specialist interest programs do you think they will put on air, how many independent current affairs and consumer programmes do you think they will be prepared to put on air (particularly ones that are freely able to raise criticism of their potential advertisers).... All too easy to criticise until it's too late.

It is. But if that's where the best jobs are - you go. If that's where the clients are - you travel. Its an ever globalised world is business. The days of us all living in cute little hamlets dealing with each other a short stroll from everywhere are long gone. As I have made out before, bearded hipsters in California may try to sell the concept that the entire world can be reached by just a few clicks whilst sat in your home armchair but for most of us, the reality is nothing like that.

Barnsley doesn't have a CITY centre. Stop dreaming. We all know you lot envy the status Sheffield has. To be fair though, your new market building, leisure complex and extra shopping units are looking good and will all be complete soon. You know, several years after Sheffield got theirs 😉

Oops. I stand corrected. Late night and all that. Carry on everyone....

What a very strange comment. For some parts of the outer reaches of Sheffield there are bus routes and even drives into the same city that take 40 minutes plus. Ask anyone down the South East and the average commute can be double or triple that time each way. Blimey, even one of my old jobs which was only located as near as a suburb in chesterfield took me nearly an hour each way from my house. Whilst I would get fully behind any incentive to get people working close to home, you have to be realistic.

Wow, how very judgemental of you. I certainly dont travel on the Master Cutler and know very well about the struggle of commuters. I do it. Try getting a seat on the 8.00 train to Manchester or even getting on board any of the peak services to Leeds. Not all my travel is long distance. I know full well that none of these projects will completed any time in my lifetime but perhaps im not completely selfish and care about infrastructure for the next generation. Despite all the futureologists guff the reality is that the the word of work is going to change that much as I have pointed out earlier. The digital revolution may work well for some but not all. There will always be demand for travel and ever increasing populations who need to do it. We are living and working longer. Demand will not stop and neither should progress. Its none of your business what and how I pay for my travel tickets and completely irrelevant to the points I am trying to make. But for the record, just because I am travelling for business does not mean that I throw around the company credit card without a care in the world. Since clients often pay for my travel (some of which are civil service) they certainly dont allow first class nor does my company - even for Directors. Like most sensible businesses it seeks out the cheapest fares and routes where feesibly possible. Its what all sensible people would do right? Yes, I would consider it highly likely that HS2 will have a costs premium just like most train fares do (why on earth do you think cheap tickets have travel restrictions) but that will be the balance most people will decide between either business need, personal convenience or necessity. Just like everyone does now. Is such circumstance any different than people now who have a choice between flying over catching the train or catching the train over going on the coach or going on the coach over catching multiple local buses? Since in my working life I make money when stat with clients not sat on trains, any increased costs that cuts travel down to bare minimum will likely be far outweighed by my chargeable billing. Simiarly, if someone CHOOSES to pay HS2 price for the conveinence of doing a leisurely day trip to london with a quick 1h 20 journey its for them to do so. I certainly would if it meant I could gain an extra 2 hours tourist time rather than sat on a train for longer. If someone chooses to start a job in Leeds because they can earn more than afford the HS2 premium which allows them a 10-15 minute commute time why shouldn't they do it. Nobody has ever said that HS2 was going to be an alternative to the other rail infrastrucure but its certainly going to be thing that kick starts the rest of the developments. Now since you are back in your box and asked for some examples, I will give you some. Sheffield to Maidstone was a recent one. A journey that took just under 4 hours in total each way. With HS2 I could have had a time reduction on the London section of the route to less than 90 minutes rather than the current times of anything up to 2 hours 20. That would give me more options of how to change and even more scope to schedule with the less frequent St Pancras HS1 route (another hour saved rather than the stopping service from Victoria). In other words, that 4 hours could drop to just 2.5 hours each way. When you are looking at working time, that could mean the difference between overnight accommodation costs or enough time to do the job in a 8 hour single day. What about other factors, London itself changes from being up before dawn starts to get to a 10am meeting, to leaving home at a civilised hour. Thinking more locally, enough with the 90 minute bone shakers into Leeds, anyone within a reasonable distance of Sheffield Station could be getting up there in estmiated times of 10-15 minutes. That opens up scope for job opportunities without the burden of the well lothed M1 commute. Extending that further, think about getting up to the North East, York or even Scotland. If one can reach leeds as a 'hub' in 15 minutes it would make a massive impacts to such overall journey times. Then we look at the capacity issue again. With more people going on HS2 that frees up space on the already jammed lines in the region. That gives scope to the increased number or faster localised services which is what everyone has been screaming for.

The ones who live in the protective bubble of the M25 who hypocritically enjoy the spoils of TFLs fantastically cheap and efficient public transport, smugly hop on their easy, quick low carbon emitting train jaunts to Paris and Brussels and Amsterdam whilst seemingly taking all steps to derail (haha!) any attempts to bring that sort of heavy investment infrastructure northwards -just in case the contractors happen to break a twig or disrupt a few butterflies. ....those types of people. IMO corbynmentalists and (now former) REAL labour supporters are two very different things. Yes, I know there are a few exceptions but let's face it - Manchester is just desperately trying to be London 2 and Liverpool are so ingrained that they would vote for a turd wearing a red rosette.