ECCOnoob

I would have thought it was obvious. The business of the John Lewis Partnership is alive and well. Very much unlike "Cole Brothers" which was nothing more than a branch trading name from the 1940s onwards and disappeared altogether way back in early 2000s. As I said earlier, the fact that coming up 20 years later we have people still insisting on using that name for the store is just rediculous. A prime example of the stubborn "dont like change" mentality which thwarts development and regeneration round here.

I would agree. This is what city centres are about now mixed use. People living, working, leisure activities and some retail all in one place. We need to move away from just turning the city centre into some glorified shopping mall. This is what so many people obsess over and it's wrong. People forget there are other things that happen in a city. Its the same argument that people try and use when they bang on about the city should be offering free parking everywhere just like meadowhall. Its stupid. They have simply no idea that there are other people coming here every day who are nothing to do with shopping. Such free spaces will be snapped up before shoppers even got out of bed.

Well it's about time they put a stop to it then. Cole Brothers has had nothing to do with two brothers called 'Cole' since 1927. It was bought by Selfridges Provincial which was itself bought by John Lewis Partnership in 1940. It's been part of the John Lewis partnership with John Lewis stock, john Lewis service and John Lewis branding for nearly 50 years. Its official name was changed to the parent company approaching 20 years ago. It's even had another slight name and branding change since then. There cant really be that many left to remember the good old days of that old family run department store. For all the others who still insist on calling it coles it's just stubborn typical Sheffield mentality. As for the Guardian article I think it's a complete hatchet job. They seem to pick images of a single unit for let on an otherwise completely filled Street. They've got their facts completely wrong by claiming certain stores are closing when in fact they are simply moving to a brand new development. Clearly it has been written by someone who is not step foot in the city because if they had they would know full well that Sheffield biggest problem with retail for decades was that it is too spread out - they are trying to fix that. High Streets are dying all over the country but for some reason this journalist has singled out most of the problems as being a Sheffield one. Maybe said journalist needs to have a wander more local to his home - having recently being in London and wandering along Oxford Street the so-called flagship of the country - it is itself looking a bit poor relation. Plenty of cheap, touristy and tat shops piled up on there too. Yes it may have the flag ships but a big House of Fraser with only a handful of customers in and a bargain clearance section on the top floor hardly screams a roaring success. It may have a big shiny flagship Primark which is still just a Primark covered in glitter. John Lewis is John Lewis but just 5 times bigger. Debenhams is just Debenhams but with a bit more chome and a closed down patisserie-valerie sat in the middle of the menswear floor. Every other shop is just the same as you can see on fargate or meadowhall. One could say the only real jewel in the crown is Selfridges but let's face it - we all know full well that if such a thing opened up here a vast majority will simply walk in laugh at the price tag and walk out again. All round the article had absolutely no balance. no real insight into what the city is about and what's happening. A pretty ropey attempt to beat some agenda at best.

Well how should it be described then. A bloke who wanders around with a massive knife and attacks someone in a McDonald's can hardly be deemed mentally sound and rational can they!

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe you. Hassle for money - yes. Be abusive - possible. But as for frighten, intimidate and 'chase after' you ...not buying it. 36 years i have lived in this city and never once seen a beggar (even the most drunk) go chasing down the street after someone. A firm "no sorry" and walk on suffices. If you are really so fearful as you claim then quite frankly living in ANY city is not for you. How do you cope with Chuggers and Overkeen perfume counter staff or even clipboard welding survey takers? Best stay away from shopping malls too.

A finding of liability for a road traffic accident does not and has never automatically lead to criminal investigations and potential prosecution. If it did every police force in the country and the CPS would be completely snowed under with investigations backlogged for years. The subsequent hearing of such prosecutions would collapse the court system. Unless anybody has some concrete evidence that the duke deliberately was driving without due care and attention or was deliberately undertaking negligent acts whilst controlling his vehicle what grounds for bringing charges of criminal acts could be raised? if the answer is none. Then just like 1001 other day-to-day road traffic incidents it will be left to the insurers to deal with as a civil matter. Based on the current rumours neither driver was over the alcohol limit, neither driver was deemed to be excessively speeding and neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention. I know there is a certain section who can't wait to get the head of a royal on the spike but this is getting beyond a joke.

Last time I checked Singapore wasn't in the EU. What's Dyson's excuse for moving? 2% saving in tax rate each year perhaps.

Would it? Dont you need a thing called evidence to bring a charge? Do we know that the Duke was playing on his moble, or trying to tune the radio or reach into the central console to grab a sweetie or was he chatting away to his passenger or looking up at the sky.... Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. I have been in one. It was completely my fault and my insurance paid out in full but I never got criminally "charged". My brother was in one, he stalled as he was exiting a junction and had a bump. His insurers too found 100% liability and paid out in full. He never got PC Plod knocking on his door. Lets face facts. If the story was old man has accident nobody would give a toss and little Miss Victim wouldn't get invites on the Tabloid TV sofas. She is milking it for all its worth and knows it. Waaaaaa he never personally apologised. Waaaaa I never got to see him grovelling for causing my damages. Waaaa look at me. The only interesting thing is whether he should be allowed to carry on driving, but that's a decision that would have to be made for any other person of the same age. The law on re-tests and driving suitability assessments applies to all - royal or other. That is a decison for the DVLA and nobody else. Car accidents happen every day. Insurance is there for a reason and IF fault is found she will get renumerated. IF she has genuine personal injuries then she can proceed to file a claim. End of story. This is the cult of "famous" we live in these days. A so called high profile person can't so much as fart without the press jumping all over it. That creates of sub culture of people just like this "victim" leaching onto that public profile and draining it for all its worth. The media lap it up because it sells papers and next minute she will be on the next series of Im a Celebrity identifiable only as being that bird who the Duke crashed his car into. It really is pathetic.

Lit a fuse? You really are putting a lot of faith and solution in the recent french protests. Firstly, if this is such a dramatic shift in french society how come the most people involved in them (at its peak) was less than 2% of the entire country's population? What exactly have they achieved in their revolutionary actions - except annoying and disrupting fellow citizens? Its not as if we have not had our own share of so called "revolutionary" "society changing" actions in the past. Remember the Occupy movement. All those saps sat in their tents getting in the way of people going about their business. Remember the May day riots in London. All those idiots chanting around the streets smashing up shop windows and knicking their televisions cos of the banks init. Anything change...... errrm. No. On Monday we all went back to our lives. Just like we did the last time the country protested and rioted. Remember the anti-cuts, anti-tory, anti-capitalist riots in 2010, 2009, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999. How about the anti-police ones in 2017, 2000, 1999, 1992, 1989, 1985. Jesus, we have even had several riots caused by a football team losing a match. You see the pattern here. Civil unrest is recorded as far back the Richard I. This is not a new story. Its human nature. Life is not fair. There will always be those who have more than others. There will always be those who work harder than others. There will also be those who luck out more than others. Businesses are there to make a profit. Humans deep down only ever look after number one. Its dog eat dog. As someone else has pointed out what exactly do you want?

Wow. All those all worldwide longstanding social, corporate and human behavioural problems have only existed since 1979??? Jesus, I must have completely wiped my memory and totatlly forgot what a wonderful happy rainbow filled, free society we were 40 years ago. Of course I remember now, the world in 1978 was completey free of poverty, free from any sort of social issues, free from conflict, everybody equal, everybody with a roof over the head and pots of gold in the bank. The government was all about the people. Companies cared. Society cared. There were no worries or cares whatsoever. No crime, no corruption, no greed, no competition, no rivialries. Yes, of course, those happy times when men brough home the bacon and women stayed at home cooking it. Yes, those lovely times of blatent racism, sexism and homophobia all over the streets and on our TV screens. Ah.... memories of those union bully boys bringing our economy to its knees and mass disruption to essential services. Ah yes, those power cuts, food shortages, mass inflation, mass collapse of industry, wage discriminations and segregation of society. A happy unicorn filled golden ray of sunshine. ....... Right? Absolutely mental. "fooling the people". Who? Most of us are not that dumb. Human race is what it is. Human nature is what it is. This is nothing new and history shows a pattern of hypocrisy, selfishness and deception and advantage taking in all of us. The problems existno doubt, but to pin it down to some very recent time frame is just deluded.

What the hell are you talking about? 37 + 36 = 73 What has happened to the other 27% Total number of votes cast = 100% (minus) spolit ballots (100% - 0.08%) Subtotal = 99.92% votes counted. (divide) between Option A or Option B = referendum result (50:50 balance) or (x% majority) Junior school mathematics here. You do know how this works right?

The majority of people in the only measured process that has relevance supported leaving the EU. Nuts to your 1001 attempts to spin the numbers or make up nonsense definitions or raising all this horse crap about non-voters and dont knows. None of that matters a jot. The ELECTORATE is all that counts. Out of that total electorate a majority apportionment made the effort to go out and cast a vote in the referendum which was ageed upon by a majority of our electred representatives in the house of commons It was a 2 option vote. The result was a majority voting to leave. Leave won. 550+ pages in and you are trying this pathetic denial of simple facts. Oh, one final interesting thing. If you take away Scotland and NI who have their own devolved parliaments (and try to distance themselves from Westminster as much as they can get away with anyway) the result for England alone was more definative. In fact it was over 53% for leave and 46.5% remain. Breaking it down further for Yorkshire alone the result is even more definite with just under 58% voting for leave over just 42% remain. A lot less grey area when you actually look at the numbers. For this region I would say the vote was pretty crystal clear what the majority wanted. Our elected representatives need to realise that and tread carefully.

Most transactions take at least 24-48 hours to be processed. If deposited on a weekend it will nearly always be the next working day before anything shows. That particular branch doesn't even have any processing facilities. The fact that staff are there to give a customer service face is irrelevant - Meadowhall "branch" is just a glorified drop box really. Its always been that way. I personally have not heard any horror stories about money going missing there, but in any event, you will have a receipt for your deposit. It will all be on camera and computer. Nothing will happen now until at least next week so just forget about it till then.

I would agree. Harry is saying it right. When most people say "exit" they don't pronounce it ehzit. It's said with a "g"sound.

Good grief. Give it a few years and nobody will have any immune system left because they have never had a chance of building one up with some mild exposure. Its like these people who are obsessively carrying around little overpriced bottles of anti-bac hand gel, liberally applying it every second they have to touch a door handle or a lift button. Its rediculous. Just wash your hands several times a day and particuarly before and after using the loo or during unsanitary jobs. Germs are everywhere. Airborne viruses are everywhere. On the bus, in the theatre, in the office, even (god forbid) in someone's home. You cannot live your lives in a hermetically sealed bubble. Sometimes we catch things and get ill. Fact of life.

You think an attempt to defraud £200k out of a company is a crime that shouldn't be investigated?? Of course the CPS and Police should be investigating.

What the hell are you talking about? Specifically who in your mind are "this lot" providing such blatent lies. The Crown Estate Commission? HM Treasury? The National Audit Office? HM Stationery Office? House of Commons? Jesus christ. Talk about tin foil hats.

No. You are quite right. It was over £329 million based on the last profit accounts. That's a nice good chunk of money going into the public purse.

Oh god, this could turn into some Escher type thing. here. People must be asked.... do you conduct an internet search or do you just "google" it these days.

*ding *ding* ding*. There we have it people. Its took 3 pages but we got there. The true purpose of the OPs rediculous thread. Sod all to do with homelessness and all to do with an attempt to have some pathetic rant about the existance of our Monarchy and some tenuous link between modern day social issues and historcial events which took place as early as the 10th century.

You really are embarrassing yourself. Why don't you spend some of your time on the internet actually researching and learning some facts before coming on here with a rant.

I have no idea what the OP is trying to achieve with his post. Homeless people are not thick. They know full well that we live in a monarchy, have a royal family and there is a sovereign grant. I am pretty sure the homeless have bigger fish to fry than worry how the royal household choose to allocate their annual budget. Maybe the OP needs to actually learn what the sovereign grant is and how much the government raked in from the crown estate in the last profits.

Is it really? That's fascinating. The democratic wish of the WHOLE country eh?? A whole majority of the electorate officially recorded that that's what they want it right?? Strange that because I don't remember being asked. When exactly did that nationwide opinion take place? When exactly did the elected parliament offer such a thing to the masses? I must have blinked and missed it....... Oh wait, they haven't have they. That's just nonsense isn't it. I think what you mean to say is the majority number of a selected opinion poll most likely funded by an extremely bias remain campaign group have said that they want it. Not exactly the same thing is it. I think you will find that officially it is our elected politicians who will have a vote on the terms of the deal not the people as a whole. There is a big difference between what some silly campaign group wishes for against what he's actually happening in reality. The age of social media and instant gratification has a lot to answer for. Newsflash to the millennial generation. You don't get to demand a say and don't get exactly your own way in every single little aspect of life. Life is unfair. In politics we vote for an MP and they represent us in the commons until we choose to vote them out again at the next election. In the meantime they are our voice, they make the decisions, they vote on our behalf on the day-to-day business. In this instance it includes brexit.

Well stop repeating it then. It was horse crap the last 1000 times you brought it up and its still horse crap now. NON VOTERS dont count. When we have a vote its the total numbers of those who bothered to do so which form the result. The result of the referendum had 33,551,983 valid votes. 17,410,742 were for leave (51.89%) 16,141,241 were for remain (48.11%) 51.89% is MORE than 48.11%. 17,410,742 is MORE than 16,141,241. Jesus christ, even if you want to be really childish about it and make some massive assumption that the 25,359 (0.08%) invalid or blank vote forms all just happen to side with remain, they still would fall short of winning. Its democracy. The cross party parliament of democratically elected MPs had a majority winning vote agreeing to hold a referendum. The cross party parliament of democratically elected MPs had a majority decision that they would uphold the results. Why is this so hard for you to understand.

Ah right. So the Rail Standards Board and Office for Rail and Road are completely wrong then? The Secretary of State is implementing these contractual terms on operators just for a giggle then? Maybe they should have listened to you eh? You clearly know better.