ECCOnoob

2 hours ago, pfifes said:

Ah, I’ll explain.  Mr ECCOnoob said in another thread that having sewage pumped into our rivers is a ‘trivial thing’. He’s a big fan of neoliberalism and thinks some 💩in our water is a trifling triviality which we should all stop worrying our little heads about. 
What do you think Al?  Would you care for a nice glass of cold water from your kitchen tap with a twist of 💩? 

It is a relatively trivial thing... when you, at the time on that specific thread, were desperately trying to present it as a prime example of the downfall of all modern society and all the fault of the supposed failures of global neoliberalism which was total nonsense and I called you out on it. 

Now, what any of that has got to do with a discussion about who should use public toilet facilities god only knows.

You are like the child who bursts in to interrupt the adults having a conversation to say something silly and then goes running off to play with their toys again.

3 hours ago, pfifes said:

It’s all just one big happy 💩party isn’t it!!!  We can all join in and have a 💩 together! But then you’re not too bothered about all that wee wee and poo poo flushed down the toilets (be it male, female or unisex toilets 😀) not being dealt with properly and getting pumped into rivers are you??  Properly functioning sewerage systems are luxury aren’t they?  Goodness knows why they ever wasted money building them!  

What? 

On 03/06/2024 at 16:20, gamezone07 said:

As above, are there any happening?

 

I would like to ask about Gentrification which is happening exponentially, primarily in former working class area

with many renters evicted and pushed out to the peripheries.

 

local politicians seem sanguine about gentrification, many wlecoming it.

Good.  So they should be.  Areas should strive for improvement and change.  

I dont get the push back.   This obsession over the so called real working class to be me is a completely outdated concept.  For one thing most "working class" these days are far from it.  They are not going down't mines and coming home to their outside bog and tin baths.    Most are firmly wedged into middle class at least.  Budget Holidays abroad, a car, a small house, a selection of modern tech are all far more accessible and widely obtained for people on even modest level incomes.  

Also, its not simply about gentrification.   Areas have always changed, developed and evolved naturally.   Not so long ago places like Spital Hill and Burngreave were full of big houses occupied by professionals but now according to some on here they are virtually slums with house prices at pennies.   Ecclesall Road was at one point THE premium street with the finest of bars, the fanciest restaurants and most exclusive shops.   But now, its changed - less premium, more chains and fast food, different clientele and different attraction. 

On the other hand, places like Neepsend and Kelham Island used to be industrial wastelands -  a place for kerb crawling and dodgy dealing.  Now its transformed into entire new neighbourhoods, streets, facilities all representing millions of pounds of investment into the city.   Same with places like St Marys Gate, Hillsborough and even parts of supposedly notorious estates like Parson Cross and Manor - new generations of residents moving in, more private development, more investment all transforming IMO for the better. 

4 hours ago, geared said:

 

Deepcar/Stocksbridge area has seen this effect after the large Samual Fox developemnt.

 

Take this house for example, over a ten year period it's value increased nearly 100%.

 

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/england-133466705-19285576?s=20d1b31840aaf4fbd0b5cff22f20666b4856477bc56db25d04ea7c35f37458e5#/

But what about the fact that it has elevated the area.  About the fact that its created 100s of new jobs.   About the fact that its transformed and brought new life to what was an abandoned and decaying former steelworks.   Im sure most people wouldn't want that to have remained and just progressively decayed into an eyesore either. 

Yes of course that's had an impact on local property prices but that's took a decade to get there.   Do you know what has also dramatically incraesed over the past 10 years.  Wages.   Take national minimum wage for example.  In 2013 it was just over £6.  This year's latest increases have brought in over £11. 

Its all relative.  

1 hour ago, Al Bundy said:

To all those being blase about everyone using the same toilets....how many of you would be comfortable watching your young daughter going in only to be followed in by a couple of blokes?

 

Toilets should be separate for males and females. We have managed perfectly fine for years, why change it?

Unless I was some overly paranoid overprotective type convinced that every bloke that walks past is some serial rapist I will think exactly the same if some blokes just happened to walk down the same corridor to the current segregated toilets. 

Modern day unisex toilets are a row of rooms to be used by anyone.  If one sealed room was being used by a woman and the next room by a man, what does it matter? 

I was in one place recently in Manchester where the only part of the toilets that were sealed off privately was the actual loos themselves. The hand washing sinks and mirrors, etc were completely shared by both sexes in a big open space and nobody seemed to care. 

Many businesses simply don't have the space to be fitting segregated toilet facilities. For years they just have one toilet or at best a couple of toilets. Nobody's been screaming and demanding segregation there. Same with disabled facilities. In nearly all the cases I've seen, the disabled facilities are completely universal. I don't hear complaints about whether disabled women are safe and why can't they have their own private segregated one. 

Like I said earlier. You are ever going to completely eliminate bad people doing bad things. If someone was that determined to barge into a cubicle to harm or frighten somebody, they are going to do it and no sign on the door saying women only going to stop them. 

I'd like to think that majority of society are not like that. Yes, we have had segregated toilets for years in spaces where it's being feasible but the world is moving on, and most of the time it seems a bit ridiculous having different design, different layout, and generally different demand for two sexes when it would be far simpler, easier and better for the people needing them to simply have a row of identical toilets for anyone to use. 

I really think you are looking for problems that aren't there. 

6 hours ago, trastrick said:

Oh, and another one more thing.

 

The effort to charge, convict and jail a former President is historic, unprecedented, and a grave Constitutional Crisis for the American People and the Republic.

 

You would think that prosecuting even one such a case, would require the best legal minds in the country.

 

(The outcome of the 2000 Election Supreme Court case, Gore vs Bush Election had arguably two of the best sets of constitutional lawyers on both sides ever assembled.)

 

It is telling that the concocted legal cases the States have assembled have been left to disposable corrupt partisan Democrat hacks D.A.s and Judges, who ain't going anywhere in the constitutional legal field. Fanni Willis?  Alvin Bragg? Leticia James?  🙂

 

No self respecting Constitutional Lawyer would touch such Trumped up concoctions. They will not be historically tied to these kangaroo courts in cases based on partisan prejudice, expired statutes of limitations and shaky legal reasoning that is being questioned by the most reputable legal minds on both sides of the political spectrum!

 

On the other hand if there was a genuine case to be made, the millionaire lawyers would be lined up three deep!

 

That said, I'll wish you all World Peace, low inflation, a prosperous economy, low energy prices, secure, safe borders and well managed legal immigration.

 

In other words, may you find a Trump!🙂

What a load of deluded bull.  Let's just turn that around for a moment.

If you believe that Trump had such a nailed on defence against these 'outrageous', 'fake', 'desperate' charges which were totally without merit.....  Then how come the finest advocates from the most prestigious and well-respected law firms were not queueing up to represent him. 

How come he has suffered so many losses and burned through so many lawyers with many refusing to touch him with a barge pole and others outright turning against him -  giving fuel to the prosecution.

How come in the trial of the century, the first ever criminal prosecution against a former president, the best he could do (despite all that supposed backing and support and millions in the bank) was some right-wing nut job glorified ambulance chaser to be his representative. 

Do you not get it. He's toxic. This is just a start.  34 separate convictions and numerous civil claim losses already on the book. 

22 minutes ago, carosio said:

 

Just now, geared said:

 

Nothing wrong with it you are right.

 

Perhaps it's something for the incoming Government to work on, putting a framework in place to properly handle the tax liability for these kind of people?

They won't need to put a frame work in place. 

"These kinds of people" as you call them are exactly the same as anyone else who works self-employed. They are under duty to declare their earnings either through self-assessment or if they have enough business turnover the sensible approach will be forming a limited company. 

Just because this technology is modern and new, the basic premise has been around for decades. They are self-employed people doing this job full time or as second income. It's exactly the same as anyone who has a side business reselling products or people who have rental properties or people who make and sell cakes in their spare time or people who get paid to do some singing or perform a gig with their band at some pub alongside there alongside their full-time work...   They are all subject to the tax rules, thresholds, boundaries and self-assessment procedures, just the same as the camera performers.

I don't get why people are finding this concept so difficult to understand.  It's income which is taxable through the existing rules. Whether they declare it is a different arguement but that too could easily apply to any of the types of jobs I've listed above.

I don't really see why a government need to be bringing in more layers of rules and regulations exclusively just for Cam performers.

Its nonsense.

Personally I couldn't care less. 

I'm going for a pee or having a dump. I don't really have any interest who is stood or sat next to me.   Unless people are treating toilets as some unofficial social hub, beauty parlour or group therapy session, most of the time I'd barely notice anyway. 

We're all just human. We're all doing the same activity just with a slight difference to the apparatus. 

I'm not totally ignorant on the potential risk particularly to females and the need for 'safe space' but ultimately, these are public facilities. The sad reality is that there will always be bad people doing bad things no matter what is brought in. If somebody, male OR female, is that determined to antagonise, frighten or attack another person - they are still going to do so no matter what sign is on the door. I also feel that if some perverted person, is determined to attack, rape or ogle females in the toilet, going to the extreme of dressing up and pretending to be transgender to do so really must be a rarity. 

Otherwise, since thankfully not everyone walking about is a criminal, they are simply just a fellow human who just identifies as that sex using the facilities for the same reason as anyone else in there. 

Everyone talks of boundaries but I well  remember, one of my old firms with our longstanding and school of life female cleaner who took no regard to quite happily barge into the gents and get on with the job while us blokes all stood there with our tackle out.... I've been in plenty of nightclubs where girls and boys have just walked into whatever looks remotely like a toilet without any consideration of gender allocation and just got on with it. The girls are not going to stand there queueing if there's a free cubicle in the boys and most of the boys are that drunk they'll just walk in to whatever's nearest for a pee.

Regardless of any of the above, this could easily be a completely resolved issue if the increasing trend of newer build facilities continues. Simply having toilets. That's it

Universal, private cubicle(s) for anyone to use. That's what's in every single one of our houses, that's what they are on planes and trains and coaches and many clinics or GP surgeries.  That's what they are in many small offices, or shop units, or small cafes or coffee bars.  That's what they are on building sites, fun fairs, street kiosks, roadside cafes and outdoor festivals and people seem to cope without screaming the  house down demanding segregated facilities and engaging in endless, generally ill-informed and quite insulting debates, about the rights and wrong of transgender.

It's just a toilet.  Resolving a basic human bodily function that it's designed to do. 

10 minutes ago, carosio said:

I read that an accountant advises to go limited co. when earning above 35k on youtube. Here we go, tax avoidance.......

So?  Accountant doing their job. Advising their clients of perfectly legal ways to make sure they don't pay more tax than they are  obligated to. 

Do you have an ISA?  Do you have a pension? Do you make charitable donations?  Do you utilise your personal allowance? Do you deduct expenses?

At the end of the day it's too early for anyone to know what the real passenger numbers are. The service has only really just got properly going since the introduction of the new 'proper' buses.  Its branding and visibility are certainly improved and it's more recognisable where you can alight and board so hopefully that will  increase passengers.  

At the end of the day, the funding has been allocated, the contract is signed to run the thing so it's a case of use it or lose it.  If it becomes the latter, I don't expect to see the whining from usual suspects about why places like Manchester has a free city bus service and we don't....

8 hours ago, RollingJ said:

Maybe they should just run them on a Saturday then  - during the week they seem very quiet. I've used the SC1 a couple of times since - once Interchange>West Street, and Cumberland Street>Interchange, neither of which had more than four passengers.

 

As to the drivers, personally I find them some of the least friendly I've encountered anywhere, but I suppose if you're just driving fresh air...

They do run them on the weekend.   It's a 7 day service on both routes.  

Listen to the big baby wittering on about "rigged trial" and "not a real verdict" 

Innocent man my backside.   

2 hours ago, El Cid said:

 

Easy money, is it taxed or do they operate offshore?

The company or the creators? 

If you are talking of the companies then they are taxed by the jurisdiction. They're registered, just the same as any other. Onlyfans for an example is a British company so will be subject to our tax laws. 

If you are talking of the creators, well they are self-employed. Second income for many so it's on the individual to follow the rules. If they choose not to engage well, that's the risk they take and that's on their consciousness. Very similar to all these second business operators buying and reselling through eBay or doing paid Twitch live streams or YouTube channels.  They should be registered self-employed. They should be declaring their income but human nature and all that.  

10 minutes ago, El Cid said:

 

Online sex has changed how couples behave, that is certain.

How? 

2 hours ago, Slighty batty said:

It has made a huge changes. For a start, to keep getting the clicks, online porn has become increasingly extreme and increasingly violent.  Secondly it's become more accessible to children. There was a study in Hertfordshire which found that  one fifth of kids aged 14-18 had watched porn on multiple occasions and the average age at which they started viewing it was 12 years old. Bear in mind that online porn nowadays often involves women being slapped around, half throttled and subjected to anal sex.  The study also showed that one third of young people had received a nude photo or video, and of these well over a half had received one from a stranger. Was it normal for children to receive dick pics when you were at school? I think not. Society has definitely declined.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/10/porn-study-survey-uk-teenagers-addicted

 

Firstly, a survey of 4,000 kids from a charity with a clear bias is hardly representative of the whole of society.

Secondly, how come no one is mentioning the obvious word of parenting in all this.  The kids aren't accessing these devices by a magic and just like the whole online safety debate we had recently, who is asking the questions about why the hell these kids are being given these devices with open internet access. How about learning how to use this technology to ensure parental controls and restrictions are set as to what they can access.  How about actually educating kids properly on the real world of sex and relationships and boundaries and behaviour rather than people prudishly deludedly pretending their kids are not like that and wrapping them up in cotton wool all the time.   

Yeah yeah blame the tech.  It's just a tool. 

Plenty of extreme imagery, fetishes, masochism and dominating behaviour just as much back then. I think some people have very patchy memories.

2 minutes ago, El Cid said:

 

It used to be on the top shelf, now it's online 24/7 where do we draw the line?

We can sell our private bodies, should we be able to sell our blood, selling hair is legal.

The NHS buys blood, or it did do, there is a scandal in the news now!

No, it was not just "on the top shelf". It was ingrained in our society. It was in nightclubs. It was in bars. It was on billboard posters. In the cinema. In the newspapers. In the magazines. It was on television. In phone booths. It was happening on the street in broad daylight all just available there waiting to be picked up for those who went looking for it.

We had the drug hazed free love orgy filled 1960s followed by the car keys in the bowl, dinner party wife swapping 70s followed by the tabloid scandal filled power hunger 1980s with those prominent politicians and CEOs being busted tied up by Madam Dominatrix in some sex den Soho followed by the lager swilling boob tube wearing casual flings down the back alley lads and ladette era of the 1990s.....

How many more times. It's the technology which has changed. The method of delivery that's all. 

Seriously, what is the difference between somebody on a camera getting their bits out for viewers who have chosen to tune into their channel and pay the fee against  somebody back then doing exactly the same for a TV movie or some light nudy pic at the cinema which the audience has chosen to pay and see.

Why is somebody choosing to post their provocative pictures on their paywall web page really any different to the models who used to pose straddling motorbikes or suggestively laying  bales of hay in the jazz mags.  

Really does seem to be an awful lot of uptight prudes who are in complete denial on this thread. 

26 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Don't worry folks, there's no moral decline. Ecconoob says it's a legitimate legal business and makes money, so that's alright then. Let your daughters go do it, Ecconoob says it's ok. 

What is this "moral decline" you speak of.

Why don't you contribute to the debate properly instead of getting all snippy when someone calls you out on your exaggerations.

Why don't you actually read what I said in my post with exception of the technology and the medium of delivery,  just what has so drastically declined in your opinion.

Erotica, pornography, suggestive imagery, provocative modelling, teasing, nudity and the basic concept of sex sells has been around for centuries. 

Not so many years ago, we had topless models just there printed bold as brass in National newspapers for anyone to see and pick up.....We had soft porn movies on mainstream television.... We had entire movie franchises where the sole premise and plot was based on scantily clad women parading around in their undergarments at the behest and command of their male masters.. We had prime time sitcoms attracting millions of viewers with 90% of the plot being nothing more than dirty old men. continually chatting up and getting into bed with young girls.... We had streams of game shows where every single male host had to be accompanied by some female prop in some tight fitting mini dress draping themselves over the latest car or washing machine prizes....

Decline of society my backside. You seriously think the transition into internet-based and live feed services is that much of a drastic change. 

Take your rose tinted glasses off love. 

I am sure nobody wants their daughter to be a famous cam girl. But equally I don't think parents were jumping for joy back then either to to find out their daughter was going to be getting her baps out multiple times a week in the Sun or got starring role in the latest Confessions movie.  Doesn't mean people didn't do it for a living and earned well out of it.  Certainly didn't mean people stopped watching and engaging with it.

It's part of our society. Its part of our lives that we all engage in whether we like to admit it or not.  

2 hours ago, WarPig said:

Here it is next to a tall pint glass..

 

Looks decent enough.   I don't know what sort of expectations people are going into this place with. 

Yes, you could get a slice of pizza from Greggs for £2.40 but it's mass-produced frozen and reheated stuff that's been travelled on the back of a truck across half the country.  

Millions of people each day don't bat an eyelid about paying £4 plus for a coffee from Starbucks.

Is it really so outrageous to expect to pay £8 for a fresh made pizza slice or £12-£14 for a main course from a independent trader in a upmarket food hall right in the prime location of the city centre. 

I wonder how many of those grumbling about the prices are the same type of people who are constantly moaning why Sheffield never gets any 'quality stores' or why Leeds and Manchester always seem to get the premium brands and the fancy bars and the hottest restaurants whilst we get left with 'the tat' and 'cheap' stuff.....

1 minute ago, Sierra said:

The problem is that many young women lack the emotional maturity to see how this type of behavior can impact their futures. There are women who feel zero shame at going out in public or disrupting  a social event with inappropriate dress or behavior.  So long as every man in the place is looking at them, they feel important. if they could earn a weeks pay in a couple hours of behaving in a manner that gets them ostracized in real life, some can't take their clothes off fast enough. They don't realize how valuable a good reputation is until it's been ruined.

 

Some women have always done that. Plenty of blokes have always done that too.

Whether people find it distasteful or not This is a legal business. It's entertainment. One of the most prominent camera companies was founded and based right here in the UK.  It has a valuation of a billion and made a pre-tax profit £500m on last account with a staff of over a thousand plus employees on their books.  

Like it or not, for some people. It's a job that they choose to do. There's lots of other jobs that might be classed to some as 'distasteful' or 'unethical' or 'damaging ones reputation' but such is life. 

33 minutes ago, Anna B said:

How innocent the 'Miss World' pageant seems now, yet it was banned for being 'a cattle market and demeaning to women.

Well look where we are now.

Once again money rules OK.

What the hell are you talking about? What do you mean "look where we are now"

The only thing that's changed is the evolution of technology and thus the medium in which these images/displays/videos are delivered.  It's always been around. You can't have had that much of a sheltered life to think it's a modern-day phenomena brought on by the neoliberalists.   

The concept of miss world has certainly not been "banned". In fact it's the last edition was back in 2023.  It might have dropped off the television schedules because taste changes and the world of viewer hungry media is as fickle as anything. However, that doesn't automatically mean nobody is watching it and nobody is taking part. 

It was quite right to scrap page three girls out of the national newspapers, because why should such imagery be thrust upon everyone without any consent, warning or appropriate format. However, that doesn't mean that everybody automatically stops buying publications with nudy girls or adonis boys with their bits out.

Like I keep saying, these camera sites are just a natural extension to all of that. Pick your favourite model or models and wait for the show to start. No different to the old peep shows where you put a pound in the slot only these days it's enter credit card number and charged per minute.

Yes money does talk and some girls and boys who are clearly confident enough, willing and attractive enough are doing very well out of it....  just as as glamour models, erotic artists, adult movie actors, models, strippers and burlesque performers have done for decades if not centuries prior.

7 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

 

Where is the physical contact if watching someone on a camera hundreds or thousands of miles away? 

Where is the sexual activity is they are simply posing, stripping, teasing, parading, grinding to camera on recorded or live feed videos viewed by multiple viewers? 

I maintain camera girls/boys different category to prostetution.  If we deemed it ok for some woman to get her tits out for the lads all over the national newspapers...   If it is acceptable for hordes of over-excitable women to go to a Theatre to have some Magic Mike type waggling his massive wang around and gyrating over half the crowd, what exactly is the problem with somebody engaged  in the same type of behaviour on a camera feed.

3 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

 

It's degeneracy. 

If you need to sell your body to feed yourself/kids/etc that's fine. All power to you but to do it online and act like it's normal is utterly vile. These girls (and yes it's mainly females) act like it's a perfectly normal career choice. 

No! It isn't! 

 

Who are you or anyone else to judge. These are perfectly legal operations and registered corporations just like any other business. 

 I wouldn't categorise it in the same as prostetution. How about calling them models. We had plenty lads mags, page 3 topless girls in national newspapers, blue clubs and even burlesque and strippers being openly welcomed to perform in theatres or clubs and for male striptease even making it to prime time television.

Hardcore Pornography in both written, film, television and online video is a multi-billion pound industry. Just because someone's people's personal taste and dislike think it disgraceful, doesn't detract that ultimately it's a legitimate job that some people choose to do and for some find it quite lucrative.

Like with anything else, media evolves.  camera shows are no different to that. Boiling it down, its really nothing too far on  than a modern-day peep show or strip club.  

We are not Victorian prudes anymore. As long as it's been done by freedom of choice without duress or trafficking -  it's business at the end of the day. If they can make money out of flashing there their wobbly bits and have enough attractiveness to keep viewers interested, good on them. 

28 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

I don't know why you're so keen to interpret your lack of knowledge about the interface between the police and HMRC as evidence of a conspiracy. Maybe that's just how it works. I know of at least one case where the police made an arrest and then handed over to DWP later, maybe it's pretty normal.

I am doing nothing of the sort.  I am simply pointing out that the ambiguous wording in the police statement raises far more questions which IMO could have been avoided. 

Its not automatically a conspiracy theory just to point out something odd.  To many there is  a big difference between something being "dropped" due to X having no jurisdiction to ask such questions and something being "concluded" and the findings being passed on to Y.

 If the police deemed it outside their remit to be asking questions on tax affairs why didnt they say so immediately, drop it and pass it straight over to the HMRC etc back then.   Why, as it appears, did they proceed to spend weeks of time and resources investigating something they now miraculously claim was outside their remit but still satisfactorily enough to clearly reach some form of "conclusion" of no further action.  But then make the additional point of declaring they have sufficient something to be sent on to the local authority and HMRC. 

Hardly unreasonable to ask for clarification.   Did the police have remit to ask the questions or not?   If not, why have they knowingly undertaken an investigation outside of their remit to a sufficient level to conclude no further action?     Why, if no further action, did they consider it necessary to still refer their findings to other authorities? 

Do you not see how that seems odd.  I cant be the only one.   Do you not see how such is just ripe for accusations of insider job, interference, friends in high places from either or both sides of the spectrum....      Like I said earlier, going to be a busy night for their PR team, twitter has already started with the mud slinging. 

32 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

Well, no further police action. They've passed information to HMRC and to Stockport Council's council tax team, both of whom have powers to prosecute if they think there is a case. Whether they will or not, I've no idea.

This is what I find slightly odd.  GMP better get their press office prepared because their statement seems to raise more questions than answers. 

One minute they're saying "dropped the investigation". The next saying "investigation is concluded"  the next saying "they have no jurisdiction to be answering questions on council tax and personal tax matters"....   but then adding on they "referred their findings to the local authority and HMRC"

Is she clear or not?  If their investigation was dropped  because they didn't have the jurisdiction, why's it took so long. It surely should have been an instant rejection that could have been turned around in two days.

If their investigation was concluded well, that surely means they did have authority to answer questions. Otherwise, how have they reached some conclusion and what on earth have they found to be referring to the tax authorities?

As far as I'm aware the HMRC have said nothing publicly that they are not taking further action and that came from an unidentified "Labour Source".... but how does that Labour source know, who told them their decision before it became public record? and if it is correct, why did Raynor not be all over it quashing the investigation.

What sort of inner workings are being churning in the background here.  Just going to be more mid that's going to be thrown around and more fuel to the fire.  

29 minutes ago, ab6262 said:

all i was trying to say was that the city centre has shrunk in recent years , yes when the market was open and there was places to go down there it was part of the larger centre, it is no longer in my opinion and opinions are like a########s every one has one ?? in my opinion the real city centre now starts at the bottom of high st where fargate starts up around the cathedral half way up west st across to the bottom of the moor up to st pauls and across to high st again , thats the real centre, sorry if that offends just my idea of the centre.

Yes but not everyone talks out of it.