ECCOnoob

I take it you have never travelled on Thameslink or the Tube or the DLR or Scotrail or C2C or Chiltern or the many other DOO rail routes in Ireland, Germany, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, USA or Canada. Yeah yeah I get it. Without a guard everyone on board will die. You and the RMT keep telling yourselves that. Nothing more than the RMT stirring the pot. Well publicised sources show perfectly safe operations but oh no, the RMT just dismissed it and banged on about impartiality. Well, what about RMT's impartiality eh? I know which expert source I would rather trust. Rail Safety and Standards Board: "We have 30 years of data which we have analysed. We have found that the driver performing the task does not increase the risk to passengers at all." "We have published several research projects over the last 15 years on various aspects of DOO on passenger trains. None of these pieces of work has identified any increased risk from dispatching a train without a guard being present – providing the correct procedures have been followed. In fact, the removal of any possible miscommunication, which could exist between driver and guard could, potentially, deliver some safety benefits. If we had found evidence to suggest that DOO was not safe when done correctly, we would say so." Office for Rail and Road: Trains with doors operated by drivers (known in the industry as ‘Driver Only Operation’) have been in operation in Great Britain for more than 30 years. ORR has scrutinised this approach, and our inspectors are satisfied that with suitable equipment, proper procedures and competent staff in place, it is a safe method of working. https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/08/18/rssb-no-evidence-of-increased-risk-from-doo http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/press-releases/2016/orrs-statement-on-driver-only-operation

Northern Ireland? Careful with talk like that. Its well and truely set in Dublin. They are fictionally living in the suburb of Finglas and Caroll himself was born and raised there in real life..

Ah right. So you obviously dont believe that discussion, training and strategy pooled with other forces facing the same issue is not a step to tacking a problem then. Your magic solution to fix it is...?

No that's not all that's been said is it. Its the NICE proposals of encouraging councils to introduce or increase congestion charges, increase traffic reduction schemes, increase traffic calming infrastructure and generally create more difficulties and expense to motorists with the aim of discouraging car use. You cannot see why this may have upset a lot of people???? You cannot see why people may have criticism of concerns about such proposals? - particarly when, at present, the alternatives to driving for the majority are simply not sufficient or even exist, as he been pointed out to you. The post from Geared above is a perfect example of that. Encouragement should not just be the simple approach of penalise the motorist. Improvements need to be made to the alternatives in order to get people out of their cars. Where is that in the current NICE proposals?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make then. You reeled off a list earlier about pollution and noise and space being taken up for car parking. You say you want to reduce car use and reduce car ownership but you still own one. You must therefore concede that you need it and the alternatives are simply not good enough yet for you to get rid of it altogether. I only have one vehicle anyway so does that mean I'm OK to use mine? Yes I am deliberately choosing to use a strawman argument of ban cars because like you have done in your own postings its a simplistic approach to my points. Yes I know we are not talking about literally banning cars entirely but the more people are discouraged and the more cost and pressures are put onto motorists that will become the ultimate aim - as has actually been in force in some cities. My arguments are still valid. The fact is that until the alternatives to car use are fully in place and fully established these headline grabbing statements and ridiculous proposals will not work. 100 years ago the majority of the population lived within the city boundaries. They did walk to work. They all lived within walking distance. People lived on top of their business premises or within the same compound as them. After the wars and after the city was decimated the slums were pulled down and the majority of people bettered themselves. They quite rightly decided that they did not want to live 100m away from their factory employer and land on the outskirts of the city was turned into pleasant suburbs for people to live. As population expanded the suburbs had to expand with it. We are now in a position where the majority of the population of a city are not able to walk to work or cycle to work easily. That means that we either have to change back to living in a metropolis with everyone in the city limits or we have to make dramatic improvements to the efficiency, speed and regularity of public transport. We also have to make sure that it is as cheap as what a car owner would expect for their own journeys. Without those basics in place nothing will change.

I have no problem with that. I am happy to embrace new technology and new infrastructure when it is sufficiently established. I agree that that would be much nicer than rows of parked cars. But at the moment it certainly is not anywhere near being established and given the backlash against uber and similar companies by not only the government but also militant taxi drivers I don't see it happening anytime soon. Until that time comes I am not going to accept some over simplistic statement like "....let's ban cars from cities..." when the practicalities of it are completely unrealistic for the majority of residents.

OK that's fine but presumably you will have increased cost when you travel around different parts of the country. If you don't have a car you will assumedly have to hire one or pay expensive train, coach or bus fares to get around. How much does that cost a month? Even buses arnt free. Even people who choose not to drive in cities or commute everyday still often own a car. It's a very regular rebuttal from cyclists when criticised that they don't pay road tax - they proudly remind the critics that they are also car owners. If we are going to start playing games itemising cost let's see exactly how much daily public transport is. How much are long-distance train tickets, coach fares, taxes between destinations. It all racks up. Perhaps some people never go anywhere - I have to.

Well it really isn't is it. Firstly good for you for increasing your use of taxis - you must have a lot more than I have in the bank because I won't be able to afford to do that. On average I fill up my car with £15 pounds of fuel once a week which covers all the journeys I want to make and my daily commute to the office. A taxi from my house to the shops is anything between £8 to £10 each way. Secondly, last time I checked buses still caused pollution and still caused lots of noise. Presumably if we are to encourage people not to use their cars we will have to massively increase the service frequencies and route offerings to make sure it is as convenient as possible for service users - That would obviously lead to more buses on the road and more pollution in the air. Perhaps we could extend the less polluting tram network but that will cost significant sums of money which we don't have and those pesky hazardous tram tracks will be spread all over every primary road in the city - awww the humanity!!! To think of all those poor cyclist who keep getting their wheels caught in tram tracks smashing their faces into the concrete, skulls shattered, limbs broken all over the pavement. I know, maybe we could get rid of the commute all together. That would be best. Get people living within the city limits -. yeah that could work a great big metropolis with everyone living on top of each other. London does it why can't we. I'm sure that wouldn't have an effect on the property prices whatsoever.

I didn't lay all the blame at their door - but I will not accept that the unions arn't a big contributor to the problems. Problems particarly involving disruptions to operations, delays to modernisation programmes and to the big black hole in the bank balance. Privatisation has been a thing for approaching 25 years and under the control of at least 5 different political leaderships. Even Labour had 13 of those 25 years to sort it out if they deemed it such a mess - they they? Errrm.... NO. Dont think we can push all the faults on Grayling for that can we. I certainly dont think going back to Ye Olde British Rail would be much of an improvement either. If government incompetence is the problem here as people keep suggesting - why the hell would we want to hand over all control back to them. That would surely be a disaster.

What safety is compromised? This issue has been addressed numerous times. https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/news/latest-news/2145-government-commitment-for-a-second-person-to-be-retained-on-northern-services David Brown, Managing Director at Northern, said: “It’s welcome news that the Government has confirmed that a second person will be retained on board our trains...." "...Any remaining concerns about safety, security or accessibility have now been answered – there will be a second person on-board to meet customers’ needs in those areas, and in the other vital customer service work they do..." I ask again. What exactly is RMTs problem? Why do they still have a reason to strike? If the RMT seriously expect some sort of crystal ball guarantee from the company they will never ever consider job losses at any point and under any circumstances in the future, then they are competely deluded and unreasonable. What company can do that? Who knows what developments in technology and delivery methods will be introduced. Who knows what changes we the public will embrace and take as normality. Jesus tonight, for Northen, they may not even have a franchise after 2025 so what exactly are they supposed to do. Like I said early RMT bully boys causing maximum disruption to passengers.

Quite simply, because like all major projects there is a multitude of organistaitons to deal with, contracts to draw up, planning applications to be made, red tape to deal with and that's before you start with the practicalities of highway works, demolition works, construction, landscaping, safety operations, temporary re-routing of traffic, permanent re-routing of bus networks, dealing with leases and tenants, compulsory purchasing, corporate affairs and marketing. Before all that you have the even bigger issue of making sure that there is enough money in the pot (public and/or private) to ensure you can finish what gets started. After being burned once after Hammerson crapped all over us, they dont want another situation like that. Ultimately, all these things take time. Its not just a case of wipping up a few barriers and rolling in the diggers.

That is a big part of the hate the show receives. I dont think its as simple as people merely saying its "rubbish" - its a lot more about snobbery. Mrs Browns Boys is not clever or witty or subtle or intellectual or even well acted. However, nobody can deny that its not a complete breath of fresh air in the schedules. No elitist univeristy educated comedians pushing their agenda disguised as jokes. No posh luvvie actors playing some thought provoking historical role which you need a classics degree and 4 hours to understand. No depressing 'gritty' crime drama with a suited detective with a backstoried personal life problem and a stack of unsolved corpses to deal with. Its just half an hour of silly, crude, predictable, repetative - almost panto style nonsesnse which despite the snobbery is drawing in millions of viewers - even this year (despite more channels and networks than ever) still got over 4 million viewers - beating both of ITVs flagship soap operas in the ratings charts. Whatever the reason for its popularity, and I certainly cannot guess it, there is no denying that its got a following. You cannot do something for 20+ years (including many years on Irish Radio, 2 films and numerous books) without a majority of people liking it. Im sure The Carrolls really care about the criticism when they are sat in their Florida holiday homes counting their ticket sales and broadcast royalties. I would agree with that. I suspect the creators and cast are thinking that too since they have cut down from regular series to merely a couple of annual specials only. They milked enough money out of the old dear.

What a load of crap. As far as shopping goes there is very little changed in the range and type of stores available than there was in 2001. All that has happened at worst is that they have been moved around a bit. You are not telling me that your son was some devotee and will be gutted at the loss of castle market and Coop is he? As for a lack of being "lively" and "vibrant" - maybe you had better tell your son to explore properly. There is a whole range of new venues, eating places, bars and leisure options which have been developed over the years.

^^^^^^ What they said. Yeah sure they could try and set one up but then there would be endless threads filled with people banging on about "how much did that cost" and "how many roads could be fixed for that money" or "how many social workers and carers would that pay for" etc... etc... After said event, there would also be the inevitable threads filled with people saying "too many people" "too crowded" "bad traffic" "totally inconvenient street closures" "too expensive food and drink" "not good value for money" etc.... etc.... Thirdly and most importantly, its there enough demand anyway. There were already numerous events happening to celebrate the new year in bars, clubs, hotels and venues around the city. Many of them totally undersubscribed and often (as I have seen from my own experience) a big number of people leaving to go home early. Given the past results of free city events such as Fright Night, Xmas Lights swich on and the summer festivals only managing to scrape up a modest attendance at best, is there really much point. London is the capital city - of course they will put on an event. It has a population of over 8 million and worldwide TV coverage. Its rediculous to even put them in as a comparitor. The Greater Manchester area has a population more than double that of South Yorkshire and an obvious bigger draw. You will notice that even our sworn arch enemy Leeds didn't attempt any sort of free public display. You really think Sheffield would get the numbers?

Grayling on this occasion would be right. Bully boy unions - particularly the RMT are a big contributor to this situation. For example, Northern and the DFT themselves have stated multiple times that they intend to keep a second person on board trains - however, they just lose the responsiblity of opening and closing doors. Who really cares except RMT millitants. So, if that's all sorted then - why the hell are they still striking? All this guff about 'safety' and 'protection of passengers' is just propaganda. DOO has been in use on networks all over the country without problem. Im sure the usual tory bashers will throw plenty of mud at Grayling but the fact is you cannot have these continuing bumper pay rises to railway staff, repeated striking holding the commuters to ransom, protected employment of wholly outdated and unnecessary job roles without an effect on the bank balance. As an other example of the hypocrisy RMT argued up London allowances for its members by 29% (yes....29% increase) and people wonder why the fares have gone up. To see them on the stations with their banners protesting about the fares increases made me sick to my stomach.

A question on my mind is whether the majority of 'pensioners' still require such things? The current generation have lived in a very different world ever-increasing technology. For the next generation of OAPs they will be extremely settled in the use of smartphones, internet, online shopping and online everything else. Whilst I fully appreciate that not everyone is so lucky to have full health and full mobility, I think about my own mother who is a pensioner and has been for over 10 years. Local services mean nothing to her. She drives a car, she comfortably gets the bus into the city centre or meadowhall to go shopping, she uses supermarkets, she is perfectly competent in the use of cash machines and debit cards, she uses telephone banking and has both a smartphone and tablet at home. l could count on the fingers of one hand the times that she has ever need to go to a post office or use the local library service. If we are going to be spending already dwindling monies we need to be very clear as to what modern-day pensioners need and want as support - not just pretend we are harking back to some distant time of local friendly high street shops and community gossip.

Errm, having a set number of visas and the ability to apply conditions to the holders of said visas is control isn't it?? Nobody apart from moron extreme right wingers actually thought we will be closing all the doors and pulling up the drawbridge. Control is the ability to decide who, what, how many and on what grounds. A system that many other developed countries all over the world have - something we currently lacking under EU open freedom of movement. I am no brexiteer but you can hardly be critical of a system that other countries have been doing for decades. If India is asking for 200k visas as part of the agreement then good for them - equally we can either disagree, amend the number or set the terms. It's called negotiation. The trade deal is just that. A deal. Bartering. Agreement. Whatever you want to call it. You scratch my back I scratch yours etc. Its how it always works. Again, nobody, with exception of the moron extreme right wingers, actually thinks that we can negotiate a deal without giving some concessions

The concept of non segregated toilets and the ever increasing installation of a gender neutral facility has already been addressed in this thread Shock horror - it's nothing new. Those 'saps' you speak of have already done it. You've missed the boat luv. You are going to have to find something else to get all beetroot faced about.

Yeah well, when your friendly local butchers shop is open at 8 p.m on a Tuesday evening or on a late weekend afternoon so I can pop in after work I might be tempted. Until then I will stick to the butchery counter at m&s food hall. Ever wondered why the car park is so full? Ever wondered why there is always so much traffic on peak days? Maybe, just maybe it's because the rest of the 'real' folk who live here, have joined the modern world and stopped harking back to those rose tinted days in the past. That land will be making more money to the economy now than it never would have done when it was a few scrap yards. I think the crowds of vehicles speak for themselves as to it's success and popularity. Be brave. Go try it out one day, go sit in the traffic queue, go hunting for a parking space and absorb the retail bug. You might suddenly decide you like it.

Oh really. Well given the jam packed car parks and massive traffic queues your warped definition of the word few must be a massive number. P.s. who are these "real" folks of the city you speak of? Do they not buy things from shops in their world?

Yeah well done for ignoring my words of "communications between ADULTS" Stop trying to sidetrack.

Your opinion is wholly outdated. To think that such so-called 'foul language' is restricted to building sites and the factory floor is absolutely naive. Working a legal office I hear and use such language communicated around all the time. In casual conversation staff say it, clients say it and opponents say it. It's a perfectly legitimate way of expressing urgency, anger, frustration or as a emphasis on the gravity of a situation. Such language is used by journalists, academics, medical practitioners, in the written print, on television and in everyday communication between adults. To dismiss all these people as low life slobs is absolutely ridiculous. You say that bloody, bleedin' , sod and git are all acceptable - I would like to know who created this rule? After all, those words along with the f word and c word are all in the same dictionary. Who the hell says that the first four are acceptable but the other two aren't. What exactly gives them and you the right to judge other people's use of it. I don't know how many more times I have to say this, language evolves. The tolerance of this evolution of language shifts all the time, the broadcasting rules shift all the time, the watershed rules shift all the time to evolve with it. If you don't like to hear it, that's your opinion and that's fine. However you have no right to be judging others or making derogatory comments for their own choices.

What foul language? Who gets to decide it's foul language? It's a perfectly valid word in the dictionary. This is the whole point about the evolution of language. There has been several polls done, particularly among the younger generation, where the f word wasn't even deemed remotely offensive. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, it was the racial derogatory words freely used in the 1970s and 80s which were deemed the most taboo. Even the most shocking c-word which is still banned from most TV, did not even make the top of the list with certain slang terms for homosexuals been deemed more inappropriate and higher up the results. This evolution of language is clearly shown on television where words that were previously deemed highly offensive and strictly banned before 10 p.m are now slipping into adult targeted programming well before 8 p.m. Yes of course we need to be making sure that children's programmes etc are free from so-called foul language but we have to also be realistic to how the adult world is moving on. You're not going to show some gritty crime drama with the recently apprehended villains shouting out 'oh fooey you've got me'. Hardly realistic portrayal.

But it's just such a brilliantly versatile word. It's so useful. You can use it for express anger, joy, danger or surprise. You can get it, you can be it. You can tell someone to go away. You can use it for emphasis or punctuation in narrative. You can use it to describe a broken object. You can use it to counter argue a point.

Modern society forced her? How? There was nothing to stop her choosing to stay at home and being a housewife. The single breadwinner concept still exists it's just that these days (thank god) the world has moved on to allow BOTH sexes to choose to be the one who stays at home or for BOTH sexes to choose to keep pursuing a career. If your wife is so archaic that she really harks of going back to men having supremacy due to being the sole people who go out to work and earn a living - then quite frankly she is part of the problem. It as if 1975 never happened! Toys should quite rightly reflect a modern day approach. Why should nursery dolls, baby simulators and play kitchens still be default categorised as 'for girls' Why shouldn't a woman be able to go out to work as a plumber, builder, soldier, trucker and young girls be able reflect that by playing with toys emulating such roles without the stigma of breaking the 'boys toys' categorisation.