ECCOnoob

What has any of that crap got to do with a private developer investing their private money into building something on private land. It is THE STATE who has responsibility for mandatory housing for those in genuine destitution, not private business. Stop turning every thread into one of your anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, anti-neoliberalism rants.

Interesting. Maybe the tide will eventually turn then. However, these corporations dont usually make such investments likely. The £150m is a lot of money but lets say those 390 axed or potentially axed workers were all earning current national minimum wage level (obviously some roles likely to be above this anyway) that would give a full time equivalent bill of over £8.7m in just base wages alone. That's before the additional costs of training, supervision, holidays, sick pay, other benefits. Given the NMW usually has increments every year too, it soon adds up. A decade ago it was at £6.50 for a adult. Its now £11.44. A 75% increase. I guess any cost/benefit will depend on the outlay for ongoing maintenance, repair and life expectancy of the machinery but one wonders if costs of the physical objects over human wages would increase 75% over 10 years...

But again, what's that supposed to mean? The one bedroom ones will be cheaper than the two bedrooms with the three bedrooms being the most expensive. If someone wants one but can't quite stretch through a two-bedroom, they have a choice to go for a smaller one bedroom one or find somewhere else. Just like my purse doesn't stretch to a eight-bedroom mansion so I have to make do with my smaller three-bedroom semi. If you are seriously suggesting that a private developer spending their private investment money to build properties on premium land in a city centre should then be somehow forced to sell a portion of it to people who otherwise couldn't afford to get one, I totally disagree. Why should they? They're a business not a charity. Mandatory provision of housing is a state responsibility. If the council wanted to force some clauses upon the developer of this present scheme, they could have done so in the planning application or the terms of permission or granted them some public funding to compensate the cost of it or build it themselves directly from public funds for specific public housing purposes. Other than that, it should be up to private business what they want to build and sell it at what the market will dictate. Don't see Gucci being forced to sell off half of their stock discounted just so 'poor people' can access it? Waitrose don't get compelled by the government to dedicate 4 or 5 aisles of food at poundland prices just to accommodate those who can't afford market rate for their gugs Everyone who buys or rents a house (unless they are extremely privileged or lucky) generally finds it one of the most expensive purchases they ever make. Most people I know including myself have all had to start somewhere and struggle and scrimp and save to get a deposit and afford the mortgage or the rent This is not a new story. It's life. None of that is the fault of private businesses.

I'm afraid it's nothing earth shattering. It's what is being driven by the ever increasing shift in us consumers demanding instant this, instant that, at the click of a button and all at rock bottom prices. Those fleshy parts previously fetching and carrying cost continual wages. They take sick days. They take holidays. They need constant supervision and management and discipline and training which costs even more money. They are subject to National insurance payments and pension payments and demand annual increases.. Doesn't take much for the number crunchers to work out the investment/maintenance cost of the machinery versus the benefits versus cost of X number of human staff and do the maths. If people want to cling on to human touch, they have to be prepared to pay more on the price tag.

To whom? The word is just as subjective as the aesthetics of a building. To a single person on nothing more than welfare benefits probably not affordable. To a graduate couple doing white collar jobs with average salary then probably will be affordable. It's a private development being built on premium land in the middle of the city centre. Its price will be dictated by the market like any other.

If that's true then seems less of a dramatic story. Basically one subsidiary brand converting into a different subsidiarity brand. Wonder if there has been some backroom dealing here "PIPER" the conglomerate that owns the P&P brand just very coincidentally happened to previously own the Turtle Bay brand right next door and also used to be an investor of the current conglomerate who owns the Cosy Club brand. Isn't life convenient sometimes.

But how do you know that your 'experience' of the city would be any worse now than it was 14 years ago if you admit you haven't been there. For instance, you are banging on about "bad parking" but nearly all of the car parking I have mentioned in my post is exactly the same as it was 14 years ago so what's changed? With exception of a couple of national casualties that were on the brink of or have entirely collapsed, most of the department stores are still there just as they were 14 years ago. Other units have be replaced by different types of shopping more suited to the current consumer trends so what's changed? They were still vagrants and beggars around 14 years ago. So what's changed?

Why do people keep saying this. It doesn't have "bad parking". There's lots of parking all around the city. Around the main shopping area there are three large car parks, two more large car parks either end of Arundel Gate, two more at Victoria Quays/Castlegate, another one just off Bridge Street, another one just off West Street and various street parking areas in between. Of course such parking is subject to restrictions and charges which is no different to any other city in the world. Unlike a mall, a city centre has people attending for different reasons beyond shopping so therefore it has to be controlled. The city centre still does have department stores. At least three of them, maybe even five-six of them depending on how it's defined. Yes, of course it had a lot more in the past, but it's obvious there's been a global decline in the popularity of department stores and significant rise in internet shopping. Several of the names we have lost from the street are not specific to Sheffield and more national chains going into administration. Even John Lewis closed a number of stores in the past couple of years when it made a catastrophic loss. Maybe if you actually stepped foot in the city centre more than once every 14 years, you might notice some of the positives. Why not actually come down, have a look around some of the multi-million pound improvements and developments. See some of the new independent stores or more boutique stores that have opened up, see some of the new food courts and leisure facilities. Some of the new public Square and spaces. As for the "great unwashed", well unfortunately the problem with public streets is they get cluttered up with the public. Some of them are less desirable than others. A factor that happens in cities all over the world. It is not just private land you can just kick people out of. Yes, I agree. There are pockets of vagrants and delinquents - but let's not pretend one just can't move two foot without tripping over some beggar or drunkard. That's nonsense.

Maybe refresh yourself what you said at post #9. YOU asked for an argument so that is why I've specifically picked out YOUR posts.

Quite ironic comment considering your own earlier posts boldly declaring statements like "argue with that" and "enough said" Makes it sound as if somehow what you're coming out with is beyond debate. You can have your opinions on whether you like them, whether you choose to watch them, why you don't understand how they are so popular... But when you come out with nonsense like they have no talent I'm going to call you out on it. Clearly that is not the case. Two of them have had well over a decade or more as entertainers before their current primetime thing. One through acting and presenting the other through singing and performing. The third has spent years working as a high level barrister at the criminal bar before successfully auditioning for his own show and now transferred to the network's flagship programs. Regardless of whether you personally like them, it is blatantly obvious they have some kind of talent otherwise they wouldn't have been the ones who made it to the big leagues out of the thousands of showbiz wannabes and has-beens churning through the system every year, nor would they keep earning big paychecks to front the big shows would they.

Well firstly I have no desire to have a career in television or on stage. Secondly, unlike the three people you are singling out, I don't have any training, skills or experience in performing or broadcast presenting. Now. Do you have anything to actually to debate or just resorting to silly name calling and emojis.

Jesus, you are hard work. What the hell do you mean they are not entertainers. For the record, Robert Rinder isn't a judge. He presents a spoof courtroom style arbitration show which is primarily for the purpose of entertainment. Do you seriously think Judge Rinder is a real courtroom? I have just said earlier, Allison has done acting before big brother appearance . Rylan, well before X factor was already a model, singer and performer in various venues. How is that not entertainment experience. They're not producing documentaries or reading the news. Just what do you think television presenting is. Their positions on big brother or x factor, which are nothing more than glorified game shows, is irrelevant. It still doesn't detract from their basic talent and popularity. I don't disagree that they are Marmite to the viewers. That's no different to any other personality past or present. Even some of the so-called stars of yesterday I couldn't stand. However, get over yourself with your judgement that they are not talented or entertaining. To some people they are and that's exactly why they get paid to front programs year after year.

Quite easily. One completed training through television workshops including acting as a teenager in several dramas and has consistently undertaken television, radio presenting work for the past 20 years. Another is a former singer who was performed in several tribute acts before breaking into television performing. The third is a fully qualified barrister who spent many years working at the criminal bar in complex fraud, white collar crime and anti money laundering work before successfully auditioning into front his own court arbitration show and now obtaining several other prime presenting roles. They are all earning six figure salaries out of their television draw, presenting skills and talent. You are free to not like them, you are free to not watch them, You are free to declare them rubbish. But let's not talk nonsense. They all clearly have some 'talent'. I dare say probably more than you have. Talentless people do not have decades long careers in television and media.

Oh come off it. You seriously think that the worship over the cult of celebrity is a new thing. The media format might have changed but dont kid yourself. There were Z-listers, attention seekers, wannabes and eccentrics desperate for their 5 minutes of fame just as much back in the black and white days. The tabloids were just as interested in tittle tattle and who was shagging who just as much. There were still gossip magazines and saucy stories. There was the publicity stunts. There was plenty of talent contests and freak shows where the viewers could all gather round on a Saturday night to point and laugh. There was the playboy and page 3 hopefuls thrusting their only two talents in the faces of anyone with a camera. Even the foundations of modern day 'reality television' and 'real people's stories' can be traced to shows made as far back as the late 50s. Its not about people "coming back to their senses". Their behaviour now is the same people's behaviour back then so lets not go in denial. From the screaming hordes following their music idols..... To the groupies bashing down dressing room doors to get to touch their favourite TV star... To the magazines flying off the shelves with the latest stories about the rocky relationship of Burton v Taylor or the salty demise of Maryln Monroe or some human interest puff piece about the woman with 21 kids or the man whose bread roll looked like the face of Big Daddy. We had people famous for just being in a TV advert (one noted example was the 'face' of British Airways who had to stop being a air hostess on regular flights because she was hounded by passengers wanting an autograph). We had people famous because they performed a party trick on Nationwide. We had people famous for just being Miss Swindon 1967. We had people famous because they could rip a phone book in half. Stop trying to make out that your generation is somehow more culturally superior to the current one just because, I fully suspect, you simply dont understand it. Fact is, even in the black and white days there was an element of trash that was lapped up just as much as anything today.

Interesting. But lets have a hypothetical here. Say, Rayner was found to have done said wrongdoing many years prior, but meaning on the above rule Police can take no action. Do you think it would play out well for her if she smugly sat there going "ner ner you cant get me, you are statute barred" Like I said earlier. Even if no criminal element can be brought, there are still some political risks here. As someone who is particularly vocal when dishing it out to others, she may need to think very carefully. To the fickle public it might still look like 'party of the people' MP trying to fudge things for tax dodge.