I just found this on the BBC election site, in the profile of Sheffield Hallam -> look here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/512.stm)

It states: "It is largely affluent suburbia, as in Dore & Totley, though Eccleshall is one of the 500 most deprived wards in the UK."

That will annoy certain sectors of the forum!

I can feel a t020 moment about to come on :|

Originally posted by fhain29
...though Eccleshall is one of the 500 most deprived wards in the UK."

Let's look at the bigger picture eh?

The rest of Sheffield is in one of the 10 most deprived wards in the UK :D

Edit - Cor Blimey, I was only-half joking, but let's take a look at this Sheffield City Council press release:

Safer Streets for Sheffield - 18 June 2003 (http://sccplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/press/news/aRelease.asp?akey=1165&Mon=01/06/2003)

Sheffield has 10 wards that fall into the 10% most deprived in the country and has a further 7 in the 25% most deprived wards.

Out of interest, how many wards are there within the UK?

i think about 8,800

As at 10th June 2004 there were 10,661

National Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/electoral_wards.asp)

What are all these wards being deprived of?

(i.e. what is/are the measures of deprivation?)

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme
What are all these wards being deprived of?


Mobile phone masts ?

Sorry to disappoint you in your attempt to bait me, but the BBC are simply wrong. It starts badly when they can't even spell the ward correctly, but on top of that may I refer you to the official government statistics provided to the Sheffield council as at 2002 (http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/regeneration--partnership/area--neighbourhood-action-unit/south-west/about-the-area), in particular the 'Indices of Deprivation' section, which clearly shows that of the 3 wards in South West Sheffield (Ecclesall, Dore and Hallam) that Ecclesall is the LEAST deprived ward, and therefore also the least deprived in Sheffield. Of 8,414 wards in England, Ecclesall is the 8,105th least deprived.:

Indices of Deprivation....................................... .............................. Ecclesall Ward.... Hallam Ward.... Dore

Index of Multiple Deprivation Rank (out of 8414 English wards)* ...... 8105................ 7309............ 4369


Edit: To further clarify:

Ward.................. Deprivation Score...... Deprivation Rank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burngreave.............. 71.51 ................... 60th
Manor...................... 70.79 .....................76th
Park ........................ 68.90 .................... 90th
....etc.......
Dore......................... 16.23...................4,369th
Hallam........................7.44 ...................7,309th
Broomhill....................5.34................. ... 7,953rd
Ecclesall ................... 4.70.....................8,105th

Ranks are across entire country out of the 8,414 wards, source http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/Reports/eng/TableViewer/wdsview/dispviewp.asp?dsid=474


UPDATE: The BBC have amended their error, aplogised for their mistake, and the amended sentence now reads:

"It is largely affluent suburbia including areas such as Ecclesall, one of the least deprived wards in England. "

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/512.stm )

Originally posted by nomme
What are all these wards being deprived of?

(i.e. what is/are the measures of deprivation?)

Nomme

If you really are interested in the detailed indicators (including distance to GP Surgery!) then you need to read Indices of deprivation 2004 - summary (revised) from Mr Prescott's site (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_urbanpolicy/documents/page/odpm_urbpol_028470.hcsp) .
The smallest file is the MS Word one.

Sure it's not just a typo for depraved? :)

Mind you, accuracy is obviously not this site's strong point. According to this page...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/27.stm

... Jeff Ennis was elected to be an MP in Barnsley following the death of Terry Pratchett!

Sounds a bit of a fantasy to me... I'm sure he was really Terry Patchett.

Originally posted by t020
Sorry to disappoint you in your attempt to bait me, but the BBC are simply wrong. It starts badly when they can't even spell the ward correctly, but on top of that may I refer you to the official government statistics provided to the Sheffield council as at 2002 (http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/regeneration--partnership/area--neighbourhood-action-unit/south-west/about-the-area), in particular the 'Indices of Deprivation' section, which clearly shows that of the 3 wards in South West Sheffield (Ecclesall, Dore and Hallam) that Ecclesall is the LEAST deprived ward, and therefore also the least deprived in Sheffield. Of 8,414 wards in England, Ecclesall is the 8,105th least deprived.:

Indices of Deprivation....................................... ................................... Ecclesall Ward..... Hallam Ward..... Dore Ward

Index of Multiple Deprivation Rank (out of 8414 English wards)* 8105....... 7309......... 4369........

In a list of 8414 wards with the LEAST deprived at number 1 and the MOST deprived at number 8414 that leaves Ecclesall where? More or less deprived than Dore?

Who cares?

Personally i'd rather live in a deprived ward with a dead Terry Pratchett than with anyone who remotely gives a flying plop about wether their 'ward' is more deprived than the one next door...


god get a life, is this the thread for Keeping up with the Jones's or what? lol


'i'm considerably richer than you'

:loopy:

Originally posted by beansforyou
Who cares?

Personally i'd rather live in a deprived ward with a dead Terry Pratchett than with anyone who remotely gives a flying plop about wether their 'ward' is more deprived than the one next door...


god get a life, is this the thread for Keeping up with the Jones's or what? lol


'i'm considerably richer than you'

:loopy:

I couldn't have put it better myself. Pretentiousness is one of my pet hates.

Originally posted by metalman


... Jeff Ennis was elected to be an MP in Barnsley following the death of Terry Pratchett!



Jeff Ennis was one of my teachers when I was in junior school!!!

Originally posted by max
In a list of 8414 wards with the LEAST deprived at number 1 and the MOST deprived at number 8414 that leaves Ecclesall where? More or less deprived than Dore?

No Max, you're wrong. 1st is the most deprived, 8,414th is the least deprived. You can view all of Sheffield's wards and their ranks of deprivation at the official government website, the National Statistics, at: http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/Reports/eng/TableViewer/wdsview/dispviewp.asp?dsid=474 Just click Yorkshire and Humber and expand Sheffield.

To further clarify:

Ward.................. Deprivation Score...... Deprivation Rank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burngreave.............. 71.51 ................... 60th
Manor...................... 70.79 .....................76th
Park ........................ 68.90 .................... 90th
....etc.......
Dore......................... 16.23...................4,369th
Hallam........................7.44 ...................7,309th
Broomhill....................5.34................. ... 7,953rd
Ecclesall ................... 4.70.....................8,105th

Ranks are across entire country out of the 8,414 wards, source http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov...wp.asp?dsid=474

Ecclesall is the LEAST deprived area in Sheffield and one of the least deprived in England. Manor has an indice of 76, Burngreave has 60, just to make thinks even more clearer for you. Surely an intelligent man and would-be councillor such as yourself should be familiar with statistical measures?

Sam_Miguel - this isn't a case of being snobby, pretentious, or anything else. This thread was clearly created to annoy me, but more than that it is based on false information which is highly misleading. Afterall, you wouldn't want your beloved Heeley being wrongly badmouthed, and you would no doubt rightfully stick up for it if someone was doing so.

I'd like to thank the OP however for drawing this to my attention and I can contact the BBC accordingly and complain about their below par journalism standards. Heads will roll over this, or at least the article will be changed. ;)

Originally posted by t020
This thread was clearly created to annoy me,
How do some people cope with being the most important person on the planet? All those things revolving round them :roll:

Originally posted by t020
Heads will roll over this, [/B]

Yeah, that's how it works.

Originally posted by Strix
How do some people cope with being the most important person on the planet? All those things revolving round them :roll:

Erm, let's just rewind shall we?

Originally posted by fhain29

That will annoy certain sectors of the forum!

Originally posted by t020
Erm, let's just rewind shall we?

Well, that's definate proof in my book T020! :confused: :loopy:

Originally posted by Kristian
Well, that's definate proof in my book T020! :confused: :loopy:

Yes, it's pretty obvious who he was attempting to bait. Luckily his source was entirely incorrect.

So your existence is the only reason for this thread, t020 :confused:

It's not of interest on it's own merit?

Just because it's acknowledged that some people are hyper-sensitive doesn't mean you are at the forefront of our minds in every decision we make :D

(apologies for being drawn into t020's compulsory daily slaging match :hihi: )

Originally posted by Strix
So your existence is the only reason for this thread, t020 :confused:

It's not of interest on it's own merit?

Just because it's acknowledged that some people are hyper-sensitive doesn't mean you are at the forefront of our minds in every decision we make :D

(apologies for being drawn into t020's compulsory daily slaging match :hihi: )

Well it's all irrelevant anyway since the article in question has been proven to be erroneous in the extreme, and the BBC will no doubt amend it within the next few days accordingly.

WOW......:o

I haven't been fishing in ages! yet it seems we have some expert anglers on the Sheffield forum :suspect:

This (http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/elections/ward-boundaries/ecclesall) may shed some light on why it falls into the 'most deprived' category

Originally posted by vidster
WOW......:o

I haven't been fishing in ages! yet it seems we have some expert anglers on the Sheffield forum :suspect:

We have some choice maggots too! There have been a fair few lines spun :D

Originally posted by Strix
This (http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/elections/ward-boundaries/ecclesall) may shed some light on why it falls into the 'most deprived' category

Why does it?!? All that shows is that it includes affluent suburbs. Are you not following the thread? I've already PROVEN that it is NOT in any way deprived, and in fact is the LEAST deprived in Sheffield and one of the LEAST deprived in the UK. The BBC have been informed of their gaff. What don't you understand about this? Refer to the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STATS which I linked to earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by t020
Why does it?!? :rant:

Now do we go for the big wooden spoon or just answer the rude gentleman?

Some of us are clearly following more thoroughly than others.
Ecclesall ward extends beyond Ecclesall

Oh to be a fly on the wall when the BBC read your complaint :hihi:

Originally posted by Strix
Now do we go for the big wooden spoon or just answer the rude gentleman?

Some of us are clearly following more thoroughly than others.
Ecclesall ward extends beyond Ecclesall

Oh to be a fly on the wall when the BBC read your complaint :hihi:

The figures are based on the Ecclesall WARD, which includes several areas (including Ecclesall itself) which together comprise the LEAST deprived ward in Sheffield and one of the least deprived in England (nationalstatistics.gov.uk). Please tell me what you're unable to comprehend here? It really isn't rocket science.

Originally posted by t020
Are you not following the thread?
Of course threads are much easier to follow if people don't insert 'war and peace' sized edits into stuff posted over an hour ago :suspect:

Originally posted by Strix
Of course threads are much easier to follow if people don't insert 'war and peace' sized edits into stuff posted over an hour ago :suspect:

Lame comeback. Victory conceded as a result. Thanks and goodnight. :D

Originally posted by t020
Lame comeback. Victory conceded as a result. Thanks and goodnight. :D

Your cheating warrants disqualification. The victory is mine :P

To be fair I think T020 has won. Having, yknow, official goverment reports and all. And whatever his motives for writing to them, if the BBC are going to shed a 'bad' light on any of our fair city/just plain lie, I say we should correct them!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
To be fair I think T020 has won. Having, yknow, official goverment reports and all.
That'll be the government report headed 'page cannot be displayed' that he's hyperlinked in his post, will it?

Originally posted by Strix
That'll be the government report headed 'page cannot be displayed' that he's hyperlinked in his post, will it?

Obviously not, since both links work. Remember to CLICK them and not copy and paste them since the forum software shortens the URL displayed so a copy-paste copies the wrong URL. I can assure you the links work. When you open the council one, scroll to the bottom to download the word document. When you open the National Statistics one, click Yorkshire & Humber on the left to expand it, then Sheffield, and it lists all the wards in Sheffield.

Like Rosie says, we shouldn't stand for comments that wrongly shed a negative light on any part of the city. Whether or not the BBC amend their article..... well, only time will tell.

Originally posted by t020
Like Rosie says, we shouldn't stand for comments that wrongly shed a negative light on any part of the city.
I quite agree :thumbsup:

PS. It's the bottom one that doesn't work ;)

I assume you have one of those microwave beds t020?

Originally posted by t020
Obviously not, since both links work. Remember to CLICK them and not copy and paste them since the forum software shortens the URL displayed so a copy-paste copies the wrong URL. I can assure you the links work. .

I'm afraid Strix isn't alone there - I've clicked on the second link & it comes up 'page cannot displayed' for me too.

At this point, shouldn't the crocodile run on to stage to steal the sausages? That's the way to do it! This has been the best laugh I had in ages.

Sorry guys, back to topic.....

As I said before, I agree that we shou;dnt stand for the dissin of Sheffield (innit), but this isn't that really, is it. It's probably a research error. So we should all stop taking it so seriously...and stuff.

Originally posted by Siân
I'm afraid Strix isn't alone there - I've clicked on the second link & it comes up 'page cannot displayed' for me too.

Which link?? Both work on mine. If it's the National Statistics one, start from scratch by going to http://www.statistics.gov.uk and put "indices of deprivation" in the search box at the top left of the page. Click the 2nd search result (i.e. for Indices of Deprivation for Wards) then click 'Neighbourhood Statistics dataset' at the bottom. This should get you to my link ( http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/Reports/eng/TableViewer/wdsview/dispviewp.asp?dsid=474 ) from which you can expand the table (via Yorkshire & Humber --> Sheffield) to list all wards in Sheffield with their indices of deprivation.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
As I said before, I agree that we shou;dnt stand for the dissin of Sheffield (innit), but this isn't that really, is it. It's probably a research error. So we should all stop taking it so seriously...and stuff.

I'd say it was definitely a research error. I can picture a smug, southern researcher finding that a ward in Sheffield has a rank of 8,105 out of 8,414 and wrongly assuming that it must mean its near the wrong end of the scale, not the right end, and reporting incorrectly as a result.

Originally posted by t020
Which link?? Both work on mine. If it's the National Statistics one, start from scratch by going to http://www.statistics.gov.uk and put "indices of deprivation" in the search box at the top left of the page. Click the 2nd search result (i.e. for Indices of Deprivation for Wards) then click 'Neighbourhood Statistics dataset' at the bottom. This should get you to my link ( http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/Reports/eng/TableViewer/wdsview/dispviewp.asp?dsid=474 ) from which you can expand the table (via Yorkshire & Humber --> Sheffield) to list all wards in Sheffield with their indices of deprivation.

Repeating yourself doesn't change the fact t020 :rolleyes:

Please excuse me. Vidster and Draggletail make far more interesting conversationalists. Off to PM land.

Originally posted by t020
Which link?? [snip] ( http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/Reports/eng/TableViewer/wdsview/dispviewp.asp?dsid=474 ) from which you can expand the table (via Yorkshire & Humber --> Sheffield) to list all wards in Sheffield with their indices of deprivation.

This works for me using IE but for some reason doesnt work in Firefox - perhaps that is the reason for the confusion?

Nomme

Deprived or Depraved?

To20, I don't know if your capable of remembering this far back, what with having to spend so long I assume pumping up your ego, ....
Originally posted by t020
Sorry to disappoint you in your attempt to bait me,

But I think the term 'game set and match' comes into play about now, i've never seen anyone reeled in so easily in my life...have you considered getting a life? ...oh sorry, I forgot, you can't Buy one of those can you, and what would be the point anyway? it's not a statistic towards how affluent you are is it?...how very very undeniably sad.

As stated by GLC, 'I'd like to see it from your point of view, but I can't fit up your a**hole too'

So if the BBC *wrongly* made negative comments about where you live, or something else you felt strongly about, you wouldn't want it putting right? All I've done is proven an article to be incorrect, and since it reflects badly on a place in Sheffield and Sheffield as a whole, I don't see why it's such a bad thing to defend it. I'll always defend where I live, Ecclesall, Sheffield, England, etc, on whichever grounds are picked on. It's the way I am I'm afraid, and if you have a problem with that PM me instead of throwing around childish insults publicly.

I don't have a problem with it, each to their own as they say, but we're also allowed freedom of speech...works both ways see?

Personally I couldnt care less what the BBC says about anything, I don't believe in the Media, as all it shows is the negative, and creates more damage than good, I find looking after those you love and those around you slightly more rewarding than worrying about what strangers might think if they read an incorrect article about where you reside.

Again, Personally, I would feel embarrased to have shown myself to be that obsessed about how my status is percieved by strangers to have gone to such extremes to show it to be incorrect in the first place...

But you can't buy class either

Yes, you're entitled to freedom of speech, but on this forum if you want to personally criticise one person the usual suggestion from the powers that be is to "take it to PM land".

I wouldn't call spending 2 minutes searching the National Statistics website to prove the information to be incorrect as being "extreme". It was actually very easy information to come by, which makes it even worse for the BBC and their standards of journalism.

I never said I don't care about people around me, so I can't see what you think you're getting at there. Does spending a few minutes of research to disprove a negative and incorrect article about where I live mean that I don't look after the loved ones in my life? I think not.

Mod. Note

And as one of the current 'powers that be' I'd like to re-iterate the words of t020 - if you want to get in to personal debate, please go to PM land.

Joe

I'm not sure what these indexes actually show, the city centre is probably classsed as "deprived" but there are people buying £300K flats there.

UPDATE

The article has been amended by the BBC and can be found at the same URL ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/512.stm )

The specific sentence has been amended to:

It is largely affluent suburbia including areas such as Ecclesall, one of the least deprived wards in England.


Perseverance and factual evidence reigns supreme.

An important point about these indices is nothing to do with snobbish perceptions. It is that they have a great deal of influence on where your taxes are spent.
It would not do the majority any harm to read a little more about the subject in order to better understand how the 'system' works.

It is also misleading to describe the BBC page as an "article". On the Election 2005 pages of their website they have tried to give a bit of information on every electoral ward in the country (over 10,000), including past general election results and forthcoming candidates.
To get a little bit wrong can be misleading but not the end of the world.

Originally posted by cgksheff

To get a little bit wrong can be misleading but not the end of the world.

No, it wasn't the end of the world it was just annoying, but I think they've done really well to amend their error so quickly.

PS. Article = "A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine."

"The constituency contains a large number of students"

Hehe, you can work on this bit now, as I'm sure you've said this isn't true before. :D

Originally posted by Snook
"The constituency contains a large number of students"

Hehe, you can work on this bit now, as I'm sure you've said this isn't true before. :D

No, I've said that the Ecclesall area doesn't contain many students but Ecclesall Rd does (let's not revisit the Ecclesall V Ecclesall Rd debate again). Since Ecclesall Rd is not in Sheffield Hallam (well, not until it reaches Hunters Bar anyway), then I can only assume the large number of students relates to Crookes/ Broomhill, which are part of Hallam. :P

Originally posted by beansforyou
Again, Personally, I would feel embarrased to have shown myself to be that obsessed about how my status is percieved by strangers to have gone to such extremes to show it to be incorrect in the first place...

T020 is one of the 'old gang' - a forum 'elder' (but not necessarily wiser!) whose been on here from the start. The way he is fiercely proud about his status and where he lives is what makes him so loveable and a part of the furnishings.

Originally posted by t020
UPDATE

The article has been amended by the BBC and can be found at the same URL ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/512.stm )



What a relief.

Originally posted by alchresearch
T020 is one of the 'old gang' - a forum 'elder' (but not necessarily wiser!) whose been on here from the start. The way he is fiercely proud about his status and where he lives is what makes him so loveable and a part of the furnishings.

t020 has just cause to be proud of where he lives. His pride is a mini version of the majority of forumers' pride in Sheffield as compared to Barnsley.

Don't get too bigheaded though t020, or I might just move in next door. :heyhey:

Originally posted by saxon51
t020 has just cause to be proud of where he lives. His pride is a mini version of the majority of forumers' pride in Sheffield as compared to Barnsley.

Don't get too bigheaded though t020, or I might just move in next door. :heyhey:


;) Seriously though, if it was an error about Sheffield in general that reflected badly on us I would've done the same thing. I'll always be proud of where I live and will always defend Sheffield.

Originally posted by t020
;) Seriously though, if it was an error about Sheffield in general that reflected badly on us I would've done the same thing. I'll always be proud of where I live and will always defend Sheffield.

Hmm...yes...

What do you associate most with 'the other half'? (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=29478)

t020...you are an inspiration to Politicians everywhere :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Abdul
Hmm...yes...

What do you associate most with 'the other half'? (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=29478)

t020...you are an inspiration to Politicians everywhere :thumbsup:

As you know (you were around at the time) that thread was started as a direct retaliation. To summarise, at a local level I will always defend Ecclesall on any grounds, nationally I will always defend Sheffield on any grounds, globally I will always defend England on any grounds. Can you guess what I'd defend if aliens invaded?! I think it's called "patriotism".

Originally posted by t020
No, I've said that the Ecclesall area doesn't contain many students but Ecclesall Rd does (let's not revisit the Ecclesall V Ecclesall Rd debate again). Since Ecclesall Rd is not in Sheffield Hallam (well, not until it reaches Hunters Bar anyway), then I can only assume the large number of students relates to Crookes/ Broomhill, which are part of Hallam. :P

Is Ecclesall Road in Sheffield Central?

Alex

Originally posted by amhudson119
Is Ecclesall Road in Sheffield Central?

Alex

Yes, most of it, up to and including Hunters Bar.

Originally posted by t020
Yes, most of it, up to and including Hunters Bar.

Which is in the Nether Edge ward. ;)

I'm a fountain of knowledge, me!

Originally posted by t020
As you know (you were around at the time) that thread was started as a direct retaliation. To summarise, at a local level I will always defend Ecclesall on any grounds, nationally I will always defend Sheffield on any grounds, globally I will always defend England on any grounds. Can you guess what I'd defend if aliens invaded?! I think it's called "patriotism".

Quite.

Although I fail to see how you will call Sheffield a rundown ****hole after the collapse of the manufacturing industry with derelict buildings, factories, and houses in many areas of the city, yet still defend its reputation to the death against any outsider on any grounds.

Many thanks for this fascinating insight into your psyche :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Abdul
Quite.

Although I fail to see how you will call Sheffield a rundown ****hole after the collapse of the manufacturing industry with derelict buildings, factories, and houses in many areas of the city, yet still defend its reputation to the death against any outsider on any grounds.

Many thanks for this fascinating insight into your psyche :thumbsup:


It's not a problem. :P

Also, as I said, that thread was created over 18 months ago as a direct retaliatory response for a similar thread created about Ecclesall. Most of what I said was simply revenge. In the time since then I've learned to deliver the facts instead, rather than lowering myself to the same level as the master baiter who crafted the initial thread (which I believe was either removed or merged into the huge Ecclesall Rd debate thread).

t020 thanks for clearing that up. I also thank you for calling me an intelligent man but not so sure about the would-be councillor bit. How intelligent would I have been had I thought I could win in an ex tory ward now dominated by the libs?

Back to thread: I was only going on the information in your post, and others, and asking whether Dore was more deprived than Ecclesall and you've now shown that it is.

PS I don't have time to chase down all the urls posted on this forum so thanks for doing it for me. :thumbsup:

According to my contact at the Beeb, what they meant to say is that Ecclesall is one of the 500 wards most deprived of intelligent life forms.

Originally posted by Longcol
According to my contact at the Beeb, what they meant to say is that Ecclesall is one of the 500 wards most deprived of intelligent life forms.

:hihi: Your hilarity knows no bounds. :rolleyes:

Is Ecclesall Road in Sheffield Central?

Originally posted by t020
Yes, most of it, up to and including Hunters Bar.

Does that mean i live in the same area as you t020 :?

Originally posted by vidster
Does that mean i live in the same area as you t020 :?

How the hell should I know?! If you live on Ecclesall Road, further from town than Hunters Bar, then you live in the same council ward as me.

The Ecclesall council ward contains several areas though, such as:

Ecclesall, Whirlow, High Storrs, Greystones, Endcliffe, Brincliffe, Parkhead, Bents Green, Ringinglow, etc etc.

Well i live on Norfolk Park t020 and it is classed as 'Central'.

It seems the 'Central' part of Sheffield is getting bigger by the day :suspect:

Originally posted by vidster
Well i live on Norfolk Park t020 and it is classed as 'Central'.

It seems the 'Central' part of Sheffield is getting bigger by the day :suspect:

Yes the central constituency goes as far out as approximately the Hunters Bar roundabout, which is when the Sheffield Hallam constituency begins. You can get a rough idea of the areas covered by constituencies both in Sheffield and anywhere in England by going to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm

Norfolk Park is within the Arbourthorne council ward, which is part of the Sheffield Central constituency.

Its no secret that most of Sheffield is a ****hole......... Most of our houses in this country are over 100 years old for starters.... And most of Sheffield looks old....... Ecclesall and fulwood etc just look miles better, cleaner, greener, houses are well kept and looks gorgeous, none of that Firth Park rubbish.......:P

"Sam_Miguel - this isn't a case of being snobby, pretentious, or anything else. This thread was clearly created to annoy me, but more than that it is based on false information which is highly misleading. Afterall, you wouldn't want your beloved Heeley being wrongly badmouthed"

Think it's pretty telling we are arguing about places like Ecclesall being deprived when even people from Heeley have internet access. What a modern city Sheffield is!!
Hahaha and everyone thought this thread was dead!!

It would appear that a humour bypass is a pre-requisite to live in our green and pleasant suburbs.

Does this thread run alongside "Do you fart in public" as the funniest post of the year?

I love the bit about "swarmy southerners". Something about pot, kettles and black spring to mind.

Originally posted by Sony
Its no secret that most of Sheffield is a ****hole......... Most of our houses in this country are over 100 years old for starters.... And most of Sheffield looks old....... Ecclesall and fulwood etc just look miles better, cleaner, greener, houses are well kept and looks gorgeous, none of that Firth Park rubbish.......:P

Is it just me, or does this post not actually make any sense? :confused:

Other than having a sly dig at Firth Park I have actually no clue what you are saying...

Are you from Sheffield, because you sound like a tourist... Sheffield is not a ****hole, as you so eloquently put it. As with most cities there are not so desirable places and there are really expensive areas. Unfortunately, people whose only experience of Sheffield is the news pictures in the 80s or the Full Monty don't seem to realise that. Bit sad really.

I agree that we should stand up and say positive things about the area we live in and if we have worked hard to get what we have, it is normal that we should be proud of what we have.
It takes a lot of working for and it does not come easily .I agree that it is important for the website by the BBC to be corrected as an election is upon on and it is important to have all the right facts.

Had a post wiped out there with no explanation! Maybe one will follow.
Just wanted to ask TO 20 if he bought the house at Ecclesall or whether it belongs to mummy and daddy? If you had to work to buy something would you be so arrogant about where you lived.

Dragon

I'm sorry you're unable to distinguish between arrogance and pride (not to mention getting facts straight).

PS. Your post was probably removed because of its abusive and foul-languaged nature. Please use the PM system for personal comments, not the forum.

I did not use any swearwords in my post! and by the way did you pay for the house in the suburbs or was it mummy and daddy. Just wondering .

Originally posted by dragonsoup
I did not use any swearwords in my post! and by the way did you pay for the house in the suburbs or was it mummy and daddy. Just wondering .


Yes you did, I saw your post and reported it. You used at least 2 swearwords, albeit part-censored. Again, any personal Qs please take to PM. This thread isn't about me it's about the BBC getting its facts wrong and then later on amending their mistake.

So mummy and daddy bought it then?

Spit dummy out...............here

Originally posted by dragonsoup
So mummy and daddy bought it then?

Spit dummy out...............here

I don't see the relevance either way? The BBC made a mistake that was detrimental to where I live (and Sheffield as a whole), so I defended it with the FACTS and the BBC amended their error. Anything else is irrelevant.

MOD: Please keep to the thread topic which is, as t020 has pointed out, about the BBC's report.

OK , Sorry folks.

Originally posted by Sony
Ecclesall and fulwood etc just look miles better, cleaner, greener, houses are well kept

Thats not strictly true, there are plenty of houses falling to bits because people can't afford to have them fixed (I know a couple of builders)

Originally posted by nick2
Thats not strictly true, there are plenty of houses falling to bits because people can't afford to have them fixed (I know a couple of builders)

It's true as a generalisation. There are bound to be, in general, less houses falling to bits in less deprived areas - it's simple logic.

Originally posted by t020
It's true as a generalisation. There are bound to be, in general, less houses falling to bits in less deprived areas - it's simple logic.

Not realy, in more deprived areas the council might be responsible for repairs, not the resident, also the people in the more deprived area may actually have more desposable income to spend on their house/garden due to lower mortgage payments or renting from the council.

If a person earns £2000 a month but pays £1800 on their mortgage do they realy have more money than someone who earns £800 a month but only spend £300 on their mortgage, obviously they have the value of the "property" but that doesn't pay for a holliday or feed the kids.

Originally posted by nick2
Not realy, in more deprived areas the council might be responsible for repairs, not the resident, also the people in the more deprived area may actually have more desposable income to spend on their house/garden due to lower mortgage payments or renting from the council.

If a person earns £2000 a month but pays £1800 on their mortgage do they realy have more money than someone who earns £800 a month but only spend £300 on their mortgage, obviously they have the value of the "property" but that doesn't pay for a holliday or feed the kids.

So howcome in the less deprived, non-council areas the houses still generally look better kept with nicer cars parked outside, more kids attending private school, etc etc?

Originally posted by t020
So howcome in the less deprived, non-council areas the houses still generally look better kept with nicer cars parked outside, more kids attending private school, etc etc?

But they don't, there are just as many houses with flaking paintwork in Beauchief as there are in Woodhouse, you just don't see it because you assume it's not there, you only see what you want to see to re-inforce your oppinion of your area as opposed to other areas.

When I say "you" I mean people in general.

Originally posted by nick2
But they don't, there are just as many houses with flaking paintwork in Beauchief as there are in Woodhouse, you just don't see it because you assume it's not there, you only see what you want to see to re-inforce your oppinion of your area as opposed to other areas.

When I say "you" I mean people in general.


I disagree. People who live in the less deprived areas have, in general, more disposable income. Your "creative accounting" is misleading - a £1,800 a month mortgage equates to a total mortgage value of almost £400,000, so I don't think someone with a £24,000 salary would get a nearly 16x salary mortgage! I see what you're trying to say though, and I realise that there will always be some neglected houses even in more affluent areas, e.g. when people retire and can't afford to keep their house looking as nice.

Originally posted by t020
I disagree. People who live in the less deprived areas have, in general, more disposable income. Your "creative accounting" is misleading - a £1,800 a month mortgage equates to a total mortgage value of almost £400,000, so I don't think someone with a £24,000 salary would get a nearly 16x salary mortgage!

The example was just to show that you can have a larger disposable income while earning less, if your outgoings are less, IMO a person who has £500 a month disposable income is better-off than someone who has £200 a month disposable income, even if the second person earns twice as much.

Originally posted by nick2
The example was just to show that you can have a larger disposable income while earning less, if your outgoings are less, IMO a person who has £500 a month disposable income is better-off than someone who has £200 a month disposable income, even if the second person earns twice as much.

Yes but your example was flawed because a mortgage company would never lend that much to someone earning that little.

By the way, in terms of disposable income, the Sheffield Hallam constituency ranks 2nd in the entire country (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3025321.stm ) so I think this kind of undermines your point.

Originally posted by t020
I Your "creative accounting" is misleading - a £1,800 a month mortgage equates to a total mortgage value of almost £400,000.

Actually, a 25 year repayment mortgage at 5% with payments of £1,800 is £305,000 (not £400,000)
Unless, of course you were using an interest only mortgage to 'help' your argument.

Originally posted by sham71
Actually, a 25 year repayment mortgage at 5% with payments of £1,800 is £305,000 (not £400,000)
Unless, of course you were using an interest only mortgage to 'help' your argument.

No, I was basing it on a rough approximation of £500 per month over 25 years for a £100,000 mortgage. It wasn't an accurate quotation and it will of course depend on the lender, which rate you choose, etc etc, but furthermore it's irrelevant - £305,000 mortgages still don't get dished out to people on £24,000 a year, and I've already disproved Nick's main argument in my previous posting.

Originally posted by t020
and I've already disproved Nick's main argument in my previous posting.

It wasn't an argument, why do you see everyones opinion as a challenge that has to be disproved ?

I was just saying that someone with a disposable income of £500 a month is IN MY OPINION better of than someone with £300 a month disposable income regardless of where they live.

I wasn't challenging your knowledge of mortgages or anything, even I'm smart enough to know that a person on £24K wouldn't get a mortgage for £200K, but that wasn't my point in the first place.

Originally posted by nick2
It wasn't an argument, why do you see everyones opinion as a challenge that has to be disproved ?

I was just saying that someone with a disposable income of £500 a month is IN MY OPINION better of than someone with £300 a month disposable income regardless of where they live.

I wasn't challenging your knowledge of mortgages or anything, even I'm smart enough to know that a person on £24K wouldn't get a mortgage for £200K, but that wasn't my point in the first place.

No, your point in the first place was that there are lots of neglected houses in affluent areas due to people having less disposable income, yes? My point in defence of that was that Sheffield Hallam is actually the 2nd most affluent part of the entire UK in terms of disposable income.

Originally posted by t020
My point in defence of that was that Sheffield Hallam is actually the 2nd most affluent part of the entire UK in terms of disposable income.

It doesn't actually say that though does it, it says that Hallam is the second richest but doesn't say that it has the second highest disposable income, your assuming that because they have more money they have more disposable income which I'm saying is not neccessarily the case.

The study found the actual average wage in Tatton was £29,303.
But that was worth a "real" average income of £41,506 once the cost of living was taken into account, it said.
Hallam in Sheffield came a close second with an average "real" income of £41,289.

If the average sallary of Hallam was also £29,000 and people had mortgages for £250K then they arn't going to have much money left over to spend, real money, not "real" money.

But that's the point of the study. The "real income" takes into account house prices, disposable income, etc, as well as actual income. Cost of living is factored into the "real income" so it allows for mortgage costs and actual disposable income.

T020's right on this one.

The BBC's real wealth list took the actual disposable income of the family, the real money, rather than the accrued wealth of all the family's assets. This they calculated by summing the total income of the family plus income from investments and the like minus the overheads and living costs. Living costs being important in the equation.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3025321.stm]

It becomes more apparent when you view it in terms of property value. For example, a 2.4 children family living in a 4 bedroom place in South Kensington will probably have a house value in the region of £1m plus extremely large incomes from the earners of the house to support such investment. However, living costs and outgoings for that family will no doubt be much higher than in the 'impoverished' north and therefore they've got a smaller disposable income per month.

In conclusion then, whilst Mr and Mrs Kensington have slightly more money than God, the chances are it's all tied up in other things and therefore not in the pocket of the individual so they can't rush out and buy a Porsche Boxster to drive up and down Eccleshall road at night whilst wearing sunglasses.

Also, it's worth noting that this is an average. I daresay that there aren't that many mortgages in Kensington as people who live there either have lived there forever or could pay cash but those who do have mortgages are probably financially crippled until their nth generation.

On this basis, it would seem that the hallam constituency has the most favourable ratio of house worth, equity, income and overheads leading to the second highest 'rich' amount behind somewhere in Cheshire, if I recall correctly. Nick2 was bang on the money when he reckoned that someone earning less but with a lower mortgages has more disposable income, but sadly the figures don't add up to support his claim that the other side of Sheffield is richer still by this measure.

It is also interesting to note than the Hallam ward has more postgraduates (MSc and PhD) per capita than anywhere else on the planet. Including silicon valley.

This is, of course, an oversimplified view and, knowing the BBC, probably wrong in many ways. However, it does demonstrate that wealth does not necessarily equal money as all the those impoverished Lords could probably tell you.