ECCOnoob

Personally I would not agree but there were necessarilly 'better standards' back then. I would argue its more an evolution of language. Whilst it may be shocking to some to hear 'swear' words being said so openly and publicly these days, there are also many words from back in the day which are now highly offensive. Some of those words are still used by my parents and grandparents without any hesitation today. We don't have to go too far back when words such as poof, queer, slag, bitch and those other terms to describe races such as the P shop, or the chinky takeout or C and N words were all used commonly without any reaction.

I don't have first-hand experience about being stabbed in the head or being homeless on streets or driving intercity 125 - doesn't mean I can't comment on something. Young children are far more influenced than a grown adult who has the ability to make up their mind with an informed choice. This is a clear fact. It's the reason why the advertising regulations are much stricter when involving children's products. is the reason why most parents try their damned hardest to stop any of their own bad habits and controversial opinions being passed onto their children during the early years of their upbringing. Surely you can see that anything that helps reduce the impressions and influencers put onto children is a good thing. We can start with small steps, you know, maybe by doing something simple like removing unnecessary categorisation of their toys.

Well they shouldn't be - that is the point . With exception of the physical differences there is nothing else which should mandatory separate, segregate, categorise or stereotype the choices or actions girls and boys can make, do or enact. Whether you are prepared to accept it or not, the clear fact is that by directly or indirectly defining and categorising items as 'girls' or 'boys' only you are creating default expectations and influences over a child's free choice. That leads to stereotyping of what a girl or a boy should be allowed and inevitably creates adverse reactions and comment against those children who don't seeming comply with that 'default' image.

No of course I'm not joking. We live in a modern progressive country. Stop hiding in the wardrobe and see for yourself. It's 2018. Gay men can be truck drivers and women can work on oil rigs. It's no longer taboo for a man to say at home minding the baby whilst the woman goes out to work. A child's life is no longer constantly subject to a tick box exercise or categorisation just because of what they have or haven't got between their legs. It's quite right that the retailing, targeting and provision of toys should reflect that. Straight men open and publicly wear make-up and 'womens' clothing items for fashion choices. Gay men are no longer defined or identifiable by some stereotyping image of mincing around and flamboyant dress....... (Yes penny luv, they could be everywhere!) Women no longer have to be seen as some pretty thing who stays at home making a nice dinner and looking after hubby. Transgender people no longer have to be hiding in special clubs down the back streets of attercliffe. Ultimately, as the years go on and the next generation grows, shared facilities and less segregation in society will keep happening more and more. 'Gender' and some associated stereotypical opinion on someones 'sexual orientation' will and is becoming less identified or even relevant on everyone. Don't be scared, come over the rainbow and embrace it.

Not quite. Dont want to start you frothing at the mouth but the concept of Gender Neutral facilities has been around for a while. There is even official gender neutral toilet symbol signage now. In older buildings they are using disabled single room facilities to accomodate this. In some of the newest buildings they are doing away with the concept of segregated toilets altogether and just installing banks of self contained cubical units with a loo, sink and dryers all in one and available to all genders.

The question is why not? Why shouldn't teenage boys play with them if they choose to do so. That's the whole point. Whose decision was it that a barbie doll must be for girls and an action man doll must be for boys. A toy is a toy. A doll is just a piece of moulded plastic.

Maybe they just think that the "public" are smart enough to already know . Do they have to dumb everything down. The term is hardly some deep secret. Its common knowledge surely. 10 seconds on google would give someone unaware the answer.

... also, just ask him how much mandatory paid holiday he gets each year. Grass is always greener and all that.

Well maybe if you love Sheffield city so much you would welcome investment and redevelopment of a clearly run down and scummy area. Face facts. Nobody gives a flying toss about that "historical trading area". Castle and Sheaf markets had become decaying and filthy 60s eyesores filled predominantly by lowlifes, vagrants and druggies. Shopping has changed and the primary retail has moved to the other end of town. These 'luvvies' you rudely describe have more vision on the future of the castlegate quarter than some rose tinted dinosaur who cant accept change and just bemoans the loss of an ugly eyesore. Embrace the change. Castle house has had a new life after years of being empty, redevelopment of kelham has brought life back into old factories that have been dead for decades, the old town hall (...which everyone has been crying about been left abandoned...) might now finally be reused. This is a good thing isn't it?? What's your alternative? Leave it just the way it is filled with empty decaying shells because your memories like it that way?

Why dont you go and ask these guys http://friendsofsheffieldcastle.org.uk/forthcoming_events/forthcoming-events/ Might be a bit more productive than acting like a petulant child over the loss of a ugly concrete cesspit of a market hall. The city is redeveloping. The world has moved on. The next generation of shoppers wouldn't be seen dead in somewhere like Castle or Sheaf Markets. Get over it.

Yawn. Another Guardian filler article based on a load of meaningless cherry picked statistics. As for their "source".... Oh yes,. Good old Joseph Roundtree Foundation and their well criticised warped definitions of "poverty" 🙄

Not immediately no. I am sure it would have been explained to you when you chose to accept the product. The bank is offering X amount of capital upfront to enable you to get something you want. In return, it stands to reason, that they are only doing so on the condition that they get something back for their service. You accepted the terms. You signed the contract. Its business.

God help us all?? What? Debt is part of society and has been for generations. Even back in torchlight days systems of loans and borrowing was in place. For the mordern world its THE way of getting things done. Its THE system of creating and building things, providing infrastructure, providing new technology. For us regular joes is THE only way for us to live our lives. The vast majority of people dont have 80k / £100k / £200k sitting around under the bed to buy a house so they have a "huge debt" of a mortgage in order to buy one. The vast majority of people dont have 8k / 10k / 20k to hand to buy a car so they have a "huge debt" of a loan to pay for it. The vast mojority dont have the immediate disposable income they need to buy and/or replace all the consumer goods they want so they buy it off bit by bit through credit card arrangements. That in turn keeps the flow of money through the retailers constant and ensures that their own employees keep in a job and have an income of thier own. Round and round it goes. The companies and organisation that employ us regular joes and provide our wages dont have millions of pounds just sat there in the bank to pay for new stock or new premises or invest in equipment to enable us to manufactuer goods. So, they have "even huger" debts to pay for it. We would certainly be dragged backwards if everything was cash only pre-paid before delivery. The bigger issue is not the existance of debt, but responsbile management of it. Affordabilty and Responsible Lending are what needs to be scruitanised not the existance of debt itself.

Good god. I dont think even the big Tesco stocks enough tin foil for the amount of hats your wearing.

What do you mean by "signs on"? Are you talking about someone who has become out of work and then applies? If that is the case, then they would get paid up to the point they left employment and would live on that until UC commences - just like they would have had to do whilst they are employed. Its not beyond the realms of reality that people survive gaps between payments WHATEVER their source of income Applications have to be reviewed and things set up in place. Benefits have always been like that and UC certainly hasn't changed the position. What exactly was the procedure before when someone applied for ye olde' Jobseekers Allowance or back in the days of Family Credit? How long was the waiting time back then compared to now? I like facts not the "Mirror's" sensationalised opinion.

What a load of old pony. You can't possibly know anything like that. "Most" of them?? Really?? All these ex qualified doctors, teachers and nurses just cluttering up the streets begging right??? Brought "down" by the tories my backside. Just a lazy cop out. The way some people beat the same old drum on here its as if pre-2010 we never had people on the streets begging and homeless people. Jesus tonight, whether we like to accept it or not - the fact is, its been a part of the fabric of global society since the dark ages.

I would think the opposite actually. Characters like Alf Garnett were a joke on the very racists that Garnett was portraying. It was showing them up for the small minded biggots that they were. It was designed to lampoon their hate filled bile and wild comparisons against people who were brown or black or yellow with all the panto rediculousness it deserved. Warren Mitchell the Actor who played him was reported many times of showing his absolute disgust when knuckle draggers failed to see it was clearly satire and instead saw Garnett as some figurehead for their moronic beliefs. Mitchell himself was a patron of the Humanist Socity and supporter of human rights. Sometimes satirical humor needs to be shocking to be its most effective.

A brand new shiny website but its good to see the old fashioned SF mentality goes on strong.... The same old faithful filling up the threads whinging about "....how nothing ever comes to Sheffield..." and "....this city is always behind xxx..." and right on cue as soon as something does get built here we get ".....waaa its too expensive...." "....waaa it costs money to enter" "waaa..... it wont change anything" "waaa...it looks rubbish (even though I have never set foot in the place)" Honestly, makes you wonder why do they bother. Build a wall around the boundary and leave it to fester along with its rose tinted dinosaurs mourning the days of the great works and Castle Kiosk selling its fags and papers.

Why is it? Its not their property. They are renting it from a landlord (in this case the taxapayers). The landlord sets the rules about what a tenant can and cannot do in their leased asset. Smoking is not accepted by everyone and that tenant may move out leaving the landlord forced to fix the damage before he can re-let to someone else. If the allegedly hard done by 'tenant' wants freedom to do what they want within bricks and mortar they can buy their own house instead.

^^^^^^ What they said. Privacy is a big thing these days. Photos and footage broadcast may capture children or grown adults or shop fronts or logos in the background who are nothing to do with the featured story and who quite rightly dont want their image splashed all over the media and misinterpreted. You see it a lot when children (even those maybe belonging to a featured celebrity) are blurred out of paparazzi photograph or on street interviews which are deliberately framed in order to avoid showing an unconnected business in the background who either doesn't want to be shown or in some cases, has not paid an advertising fee to be shown.

I didn't say proves 100% categorically. I said casts doubt. That's something a Defence is entitled to do. A JUDGE decides the weight of it and JURY decides the verdict. The point I thought I was clearly making, its that it should be for the Court to decide what is and isnt relevant evidence not the governemnt or the population. It should be for the Court, being the only ones with the full facts from both parties, to decide what weight any such evidence has. Nobody has yet answered my own questions. IF this starts a trend of redactions and withholding facts just to avoid potential prejudical stereotypes, what else is going to have to be avoided. Race, income, nationality, residency, marital status, acquaintences...?? Justice is supposed to be impartial and evidence wholly transparent.

Well, I am not a criminal lawyer but perhaps it might cast some doubt on a woman's submissions that the sex was "not consenual"'. Now I ask again, if clothing and behaviour seemingly irrelevant and untouchable issues - what exactly do you think a Defence counsel would be able to investigate and challenge? Do you think that such a restriction on the rules of evidence outside of any court powers is fair and just?

If a JUDGE decided it was reasonable evidence to be considered when determining allegations of rape against a man then Yes it should be. Its not "fair game" its evidence in court being used in determination of a serious sex crime allegation. Has the woman done something like this before, does she have a history of casual sex with random men, has she being involved in sexual trade, is there a history of intent to attract men and intent to have sexual relations with them.... You dont think a defence should be able to consider such things when defending rape allegations?? Out of interest, what do you think the Defence counsel should be entitled to probe and use as evidence to challenge a "victim's" allegations?

Nonsense. Its website is stated as Rotherham. Its official address is Rotherham. Its owners say its Rotherham. Even the new Mclaren place has stated on their website "...between Sheffield and Rotherham..." I have serious doubts that the scandal had anything to do with the AMP at all. That's a more than desprate link. The reason its known reguarly as in 'Sheffield' is simply because of its border location and connection with other Sheffield matters Firstly, whilst officially Rothehram, to casual observers its well within the boundary of the Sheffield side of the parkway with several of the buildings being closer to the handsworth side than catcliffe. Its funded as part of the Sheffield City Region Enterprise Zone, it has major involvement with the University of Sheffield and Its main office and several of its companies have a Sheffield telephone codes. Hardly suprising some people call it Sheffield is it.

I am not sure what your point is supposed to be. We are talking about a court of law here. If you want to put it simply EVERYONE is being judged. A defence lawyer is quite rightly entitled to act in the best interests of their client and defend. They use all available evidence and raise all relevant arguments against the Girl's submissions to challenge her intentions on the night in question, her behaviour generally and seek to rebut and cast doubt on the very serious allegations of non-consent. The prosecution are perfectly free to challenge the use of evidence they feel is not relevant and would unfairly lead a jury or form unjust sterotypes against her. A judge makes the decision whether to admit the evidence, reduce the weight of it, and/or instruct the Jurors to discount it altogether. In this particuar case the Judge chose not to. This would seemingly mean that upon hearing BOTH sides and making considerations they did think it was relevant to the particulars of the case. That's a matter for the court and the court alone. None of us, without seeing the entire transcript of the hearing is in any position to make substantive comment either way. This was not just about the underwear - although seemingly that's the only thing the protestors and government officials are latching onto. As I said earlier, I feel very uncomfortable with Government interfering with judicial process. There are 1001 prejudicial opinions that a lay public juror could potentially make in their heads, but its for the court to direct them otherwise. Do we really want a procedure where we repeatedly redact factual evidence about a suspect's or victim's apperance or clothing or location or residence or background just because of the risk of a sterotype being formed in a juror's head? Where does it end. Are all tracksuited and baseball cap wearers lowlife chavs? Are all S5 and S3 postcode residents knife weilding drug dealers? Are all old grannies and gentle flat cap blokes sweet and innoncent who could never commit a crime? Are all suit and tie businessmen the highest respectful members of society? Are all women who choose to wear provocative clothing automatically victims of rape and not capable of lying? Are all single gym-loving testosterone filled men sexual predetors just hunting round for their next victim? Its a slippery slope.