ECCOnoob

Yes based on the valid results of the referendum following the accepted rules of voting as has been applied to every election and referendum prior. Now, unless you can categorically speak for and on behalf of the 29% electorate who failed to attend to vote and have full and comprehensive evidence as to their intentions you are in absolutely no position to say otherwise.

Even taking your nonsense lies about the result share 36 is MORE than 35. Leave therefore won. 400+ pages on this thread and you still are failing basic primary school maths. No matter how many times you desprately try to argue it - Non voters / dont knows and spolit ballots does not equal a vote to remain.

Yeah yeah same old argument done to death. NO city centre has open and free parking its bloody rediculous to even suggest it. Every office worker, student, business visitor, hotel guest and leisure visitor would take up such "free" spaces before the shoppers even got a look in. The city centre is not just some glorified shopping mall. The reason why shopping malls can offer free parking is because that's all they have to offer. That's the sole purpose why people go. The city has offices, university buildings, trade colleges, railway stations, health centres, courts, civil service buildings, theatres, galleries, libraries and hotels to add to the mix. Just name me one city centre that has no parking charges. Even in the USA which lets face it , is the king of car use - they still charge for downtown parking.

Who can blame them? It's all well and good saying things like that but under the current protocol there is no facility to recover costs from the claimant even when they lose or withdraw their claim (except in extreme circumstances which have a high threshold to be proven in the courts). Ultimately that means that a claimant can happily rack up their legal costs, safe in the knowledge that if they dropped the claim at the 11th hour or lose at court they can simply walk away with no penalties and no risk of costs being claimed against them. Insurers and large corporations have no such luxury. They have a straight decision between paying out say a £2,000 claim or incur £25, 000-£30,000 in unrecoverable legal fees to try and defend it. When they have a obvious duty to protect their insured's purse or in some cases even the public purse it's not one that's taken lightly.

Surely that is a total contradiction. You encourage bus use and increase passenger numbers by discouraging use of personal cars. If we had car friendly streets and an abundence of free parking - why would people choose to sit on a bus

Can we not lose sight of the fact that these proposals are based on impact studies on the next generation of pensions. That generation (which I include myself in) has had a very different life to those days of being sent down't mill at age 14 or working in disgusting asbestos filled caverns for 18 hour days 6 days a week. A large number of the next generation of pensioners will have stayed in school longer, took further education studies and would not have started contributing through full time employment until as late as their early 20s. Life expectancy has increased from just over 70 years in the 1960/70s to being over 80 now and continuing to increase further. For a significant majority employment and careers has changed dramtically with machines replacing men and a dramatic increase towards desk based air conditioned sitting down roles the numbers of which would not have even been imagined 30 years ago. That technological evolution is only going to increase with advancement in autonomous robotics and transport. With such changes in lifestyle, life expectancy and the world of work its only common sense that the pension age will have to change too. Its rediculous to think otherwise.

He can say it because is a perfectly valid statement. The clearly tragic event of an officer dying in the line of duty does not excuse or remove the very real fact that SOME officers overstep the line and SOME officers quite rightly need to be disciplined, suspended, struck off or even charged for offences caused in performing their duties. Yes of course RIP to the deceased. It was a complete waste of life and the culprit who did this deserves the full punishment of the law. Nobody in any profession (even risky ones) deserves to be killed. BUT lets just stop being so hysterical in turning the death of an officer as some carte blance for the Police Service to be untouchable and beyond criticism. Just like the overprotected employeees NHS, armed forces and 1001 other civil services - Many are good. But some are not. Reality check: Sometimes, just sometimes they are not all brave honourable diligent servants to our nation. Sometimes they can be as morally corrupt, scheming, minipulative and criminal as the rest of us.

Your completely misleading thread title goes perfectly with the completely misleading news headline. Where exactly is this "tory plan" to raise the pension age?? Who has actually said they are implimenting such a thing? Also, if they actually did proceed with such proposal - would that really be such a bad thing considering the average life expectancy has increased massively since the original pension age was set. The "population" dont like a lot of things but it doesn't mean that its not good for them. Anyway, back on topic - its completely obvious that "a think tank has proposed" does not default to automatic policy and law. Think tanks by their very function propose lots of things all the time - doesn't mean that parliament takes notice. As others have said, sometimes they do, sometimes they dont. Either way such "plans" would have to get through series of endless consultations, research, studies, policy drafts, committees, discussions and votes before it becomes anywhere near to what can be accurately described as "planning to...." Jesus, I know the Daily Mirror is not exactly known for thier quality journalism but they are faster and faster becoming as bad the The Canary with their rediculously sensationalised and completely biased excrement disguised as "news stories".

visualisation, internalisation and the other cross cognitive processes applies to any aspect of our lives. There is always going to be risks when the brain is multi-tasking. You cannot erradicate that by wrapping humans in bubble wrap and telling them to keep still. Goodness sake - the exact same cognitvie functions apply if people are using a phone whilst walking down a street or making a cup of tea or typing an email. That MIGHT result in someone having a split second blip and nearly walking into a lamp post or spilling some hot water or mistyping some narrative. But that's life. Unless you are going to seek to enforce that phone users can only take calls when sat absolutely still in a controlled padded room there will always be a calculated element of risk. Unless you are going to demand that drivers can only drive in complete silence in a protective soundproof bubble with no other visual or audio distraction other than the sound of the engine and views of the road ahead and mirrors then there will always be a calculated risk in driving. Its pretty obvious that physical risks i.e. failing to maintain control by not having both hands on the wheel is high - so the handheld ban is a perfectly good thing. BUT, to try and now bring in a human's cognitive distraction into the mix is wholly excessive. Humans are not robots. They are not and never will be able to be on point 24/7 365 days a year. The world has moved on and communication is expected whereever and whenever people are. Some people's modern day livelihoods depend on it - not just the emergency services who according to some are these superhumans who are robustly trained to somehow manage the ability of hearing/speech and driving all at the same time. As if that sort of function is beyond the capability of everyone else. It clearly isn't because millions of people do it every day. I would be very interested to see a proper independent breakdown of specifically how many accidents have been caused as a direct result of HANDS FREE phone use. The ambiguous statistics I have seen so far just doesn't cut it. I smell a whiff of government fine money making and backhanders from lobbyists here.

Fine. I will stick your leg in between two vehicles and roll the rear one towards you at 5mph. Do speak up when it starts hurting.

What a load of rubbish. For a grown adults earning minimum wage that equates to less than 20 minutes work. People with children get additional benefits. Children, young persons and students travelling around on buses have even less money to pay each day for their journeys with their concessionary fare passes giving them unlimited travel in the region for less than £1.20 a day. Seniors get free off peak bus travel countrywide and even additional concessions for other types of travel in this region. It's completely ridiculous to suggest that's expensive in 2019.

Quite a lot I suspect. Shame there is no automatic mechanism for recouping NHS charges from those found guilty and sentenced for battery, ABH and GBH. Compensation Recovery Unit has very big limitations and certainly dont affect the perpetrator of a deliberate violent attack. Maybe its time it was looked into. It would certainly make people be mindful of the potential consequences their own (in such instance) deliberate and and targetted actions - some fear and risk of potentially being held personally financially liable for a victim's treatment costs would go a long way to emphasise that.

I'm glad you see it as a joke. I certainly don't. In fact it infuriates me to the core when I see those with genuine debilitating and lifelong conditions (including members of my own family) seeing their vital support services cut to the bone or even closed altogether to fund the ever-increasing numbers of the irresponsible, malingerers, time wasters and self-inflicted leaching out precious NHS resources. You may pass it off as some right-wing rant - some of us see the reality for what it is. Yes of course some people have severe mental health conditions I am not immune to that. But don't tell me that every dweller of the hospital has the excuse of mental ailments. The drunken idiots week in week out, the boy racers running their cars up a tree repeatedly, silly teenagers doing daft stunts for the internet and getting injured, the serial breeders who seem to think bringing a child into the world is the states problem, the sporty people repeatedly pulling and straining something, the hypochondriacs rocking up at emergency rooms with a cold, the gluttons eating their way to death despite medical advice and sometimes after diagnosis of conditions like diabetes...... All mental health related? I don't think so.

I do. I think lots of people choose to go to hospital on a regular basis. Too many people failing to take responsibility for their own actions. Too many people creating their own illness. Too many people blatantly ignoring obvious health advice. Too many people happily spending their times self destructing without a care in the world...... Why? Because they know the state will pick up the tab. Off they go into that nice warm hospital where they get a bed for the night, fed and watered, cleaned up with new things to wear all ready to be discharged to start their mindless irresponsible behaviour all over again. Start sending a bill to these mindless morons or deduct in their benefit payments and see how many turn up then on a weekly basis. See how quickly they start following doctor's orders. See how quickly they change their ways.

Not all areas in Derbyshire. Some are still north enough to be within the Look North catchment. Other parts are so far west that they fall within the North West Tonight catchment area. It really is best to do some fact checking particuarly if you are going to resort to the roll eyes emoji.

Doubtful. Its a bottomless money pit. Just like every other NHS windfall that's gone before - the layers of incompetent management, unionised dinosaur working methods and millions of citizens taking it for granted, leaching out everything they can get and not paying enought into the system - will soon see whatever monies drain away to nothing. Round and round it goes. Another 18 months and it will be funding crisis, "underpaid" staff and oversubscribed services all over again. I just wish instead of throwing money at it - we had a Minister who had the balls to tell the truth about the NHS. A minister who was prepared to stop treating it as this overprotected precious thing that simply cannot be critised or trimmed. A minister who was prepared to be frank with people and strip back the health service to providing ESSENTIAL healthcare provision only.

What's new. A&E has always been like that. Free at source healthcare open and available to ANY citizen whether or not they contribute to it or not. As other have pointed out, there has been previous attempts to segregate, redirect, restrict, control, charge or block certain types of patients but its always immediately been shouted down by those hysterics who see any sort of control as an attack on the precious NHS. So.... you end up with what you pefectly describe.

Because the wider public expect (even demand it). Anything else apparently shows them as out of touch and emotionless i.e. unelectable. What has that go to do with a politician turning up on site? Boris is not going to wave some magic wand and fix it will he. If anything is going to change it will be changed from his office desk not there.

Police, Fire and Rescue Services, Doctors, Counsellors, Crisis provision services and official investigators with the knowledge, experience and practical skills people need and the proper management to deliver it. The politicans SHOULD be getting on with the back office work to ensure that the arrangements for such services are in place along with the monies to provide it. They should also be preparing for any fall out after the investigations have place and liaising with the relevant government agencies to deal with any changes in legislation or delivery. IMO none of that is achieved by wasting time travelling around to show "concern" and "sympathy" in front of the cameras. But, as I said earlier - my blunt approach to life is far outweighed by others who see different and expect the elected leaders to put on some performance in order to somehow show they are "working"

Oh riiiiiiight. So you think that we the public would be perfectly happy with politicians just quietly carrying on with their jobs and showing no presence at the scenes after or during a potential major event. If that's the case why did the glorious opposition leader throw such barbs at Teresa May for her "lack of action" and "avoidance" over meeting ordinary people at Grenfell then?? Good god, these Ministers cannot win can they. Whatever they do the gobs on the opposite bench will complain. Turn up to a scene and they are dismissed as shameless opportunists just seeking a photo op. Dont turn up to a scene and they are slagged off as being uncaring, out of touch, emotionless.... I trust that you fully condem Corbyn for not only shamelessly seeking this photo op - but even further adding insult to injury by rocking up well after the main event is over? Not crass at all. Realistic. I call out hypocracy from both sides of the house. In any event, I would always argue that victims in the eye of the storm after such a tragedy need practical, decisive and supportive actions from the proper authorities. What they dont need is some suit turning up with a load of press patting them on the hands and doing their best "concerned face" for 10 minutes before buggering off. Unfortunately the wider population doesn't see things that way. Rightly or wrongly the public opinon and twitterati seem to think that government ministers must be seen, visiting, pointing, talking and showing their emotions at the scene in order to be deemed acceptable. To not do so is political suicide in the eyes of the electorate. That's how we end up with situations like this. Its completely obvious that neither Johnson nor Corbyn are any use stood there on the scene and would get far much more work done back at their offices - but that's not what we the public expect. We have to see them. We have to have some pathetic visual representation that they understand and feel about some incident.

Presumably the same reasons as when Jezza deliberately dashed over and made such a big noise about turning up to pat the heads of the Grenfell victims and rescue crews. However, the PM was criticised for not doing so immediately. Now the boot is on the other foot and Jezza is late to the party and all the deluded corbynites such as yourself are out trying to defend him.

So allegations made by "victims" is beyond challenge and investigation now is it? Yes "Sarah" and "Jane" of course it's horrendously distressing and upsetting to keep going through thing - but that is the unfortunate nature of due process and fair investigation of a serious crime. That will sometimes, and quite rightly, include personal data if the police see fit. Clearly the angle of the article is all out allegations being withdrawn because of police harassment and unfair pressure and unnecessary exposure etc etc etc etc.... How about the other angle of perhaps why allegations are withdraw following police questioning victims eh? , evidence which contradicts.... Evidence which dispoves. Two sides to every story. No. Mistaken identity I'm afraid. Not called G.

Im not overly convinced by that. Its certainly not better if your dont live within a short distance from either station. Yes, the line itself has shorter journey times from yorkshire down to the capital but factor in communting and/or additional waiting time getting to and interchanging and any time saving is completely lost. Secondly, from my own experiences of the East Coast Mainline - it always seems to be the one with problems. Its wholly oversubscribed because every TOC seems to want to fight to run a service on it, its clearly much busier with passengers which impacts the service levels, overcrowding and stations - plus there are frequent delays due to technical faults, power failures, signaling or otherwise. The MML may not (yet) have the same prestige or the shiny new trains, but from my own experience it is rarely struck by long delays (certainly noticably lesser than ECML), the trains, whilst older are still half decent and the convenience of a direct service from Sheffield more than makes up for the 25 or so extra minutes of journey time.

Christ. That's all we need. Talk about frying pan to fire. We need a politician who actually gets on with the job not some publicity whore.

It might be. They have a discount supermarket brand called Jacks. That would just be the right size for that. See the one they have in Barnsley as an example.