Jump to content

Dannyno

Members
  • Content Count

    893
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About Dannyno

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You can send British Gas any emails you're suspicious of, and they will investigate. Email: phishing@britishgas.co.uk For more see: https://www.britishgas.co.uk/help-and-support/my-account/accessing-your-account#suspicious-email, which also lists the internal email addresses they use.
  2. What Anna B is referring to, I think, is the overall difference between what men are being paid and what women are being paid, overall. It is now illegal to pay men and women differently for the same work, or work of equal value, but there can still be an overall difference. Some of that difference is because men and women are told they are good at certain things and not others, and so social expectations can direct people into different types of roles, some of which might be paid less. Some of that difference is because women take more time out of work when they have children, and so fall behind a bit. Some of that difference is likely because of discrimination. Some of that difference might even be because men and women have different preferences and make different choices - but the point of course is to keep jobs open to all and always to appoint the best person, and to encourage everyone to think about all possibilities. The argument GMB seem to be making is that it is the job evaluation scheme that is at fault, ie that it happens to calculate grades for jobs mainly done by women lower than grades for jobs mainly done by men. In other words, this is an argument about work of "equal value". So while it is true that a cleaner and a caretaker are not the same jobs, exactly, the question is whether they are of equal value, and how you establish that.
  3. First of all, you can find someone on the internet to support just about any position you care to mention. Doesn't mean there's either anything to it at all, and certainly not that it's indicative of things "these days". Secondly, the Cassidy Boon "saved from drowning/sexual assault" story you're talking about has its origins on a "satirical" website. It got turned into a video. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cassidy-boon-drowning/ So it's not even true that anyone real actually thought this.
  4. Columbus Circle, New York: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Columbus+Circle/@40.7681121,-73.9823802,17z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x89c258f63a2b3a0f:0xcc6301f5e3cd955b!8m2!3d40.7680797!4d-73.9818957!16s%2Fg%2F11_q1k8k3?entry=ttu US roundabouts database: https://roundabouts.kittelson.com/ The American roundabout revolution: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/11/25/roundabout-revolution-traffic-circles/
  5. Still replying to good reviews on Trustpilot: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.blacks.co.uk/location/sheffield?utm_medium=trustbox&utm_source=MicroCombo
  6. How is catching colds "good for the immune system", exactly?
  7. Again, this misunderstands what is happening. While people are on a waiting list for housing, they will have got accommodation somewhere else. They may have been able to lodge with friends or family, or they may be being helped by a local council and perhaps put up in short term or emergency accommodation. "Finding accommodation" for new arrivals to the country is not the same as finding a permanent home for them. You are suggesting here that "Sheffielders languishing for years on waiting lists" have not been "found accommodation", but that is incorrect. New arrivals may not know anybody to stay with, and so they are more often forced into Home Office or other temporary, emergency accommodation. For new arrivals who are seeking asylum, special temporary support accommodation is I think provided, but once someone is accepted as a refugee, they have to leave and either get assistance from a council to avoid being made homeless or go into private rented accommodation. Being a migrant or a refugee isn't regarded as automatically high priority.
  8. The 2021 census results have information about housing in the city centre. I had a look at "City" ward, which is a bit bigger than just the exact city centre, but it will do. According to the Office for National Statistics, 21,500 people live in "City". Of these, just over 14% live in a house or bungalow, 85.7% live in a flat or maisonette, and there are 0.1% living in caravans or some other arrangement. 49.5% of households consist of one person, 34.3% are single family households, and there are 16.1% "other". 35% are two-people households, and 7.5% three-people households. 8% consist of four people or more. Unsurprisingly, therefore, 47.8% of households only have one bedroom, 35.5% have two bedrooms, 8.6% have three bedrooms, and 8.2% have four bedrooms or more. That matches occupancy more or less, so there's probably not a great deal of overcrowding. If you want to have a look at the stats, you can do so here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/areas/area/?code=E05010862
  9. There's a massive misunderstanding here of the linked but distinct issues of rough sleeping and homelessness. Those "begging", or being exploited to do so, may or may not be homeless and if they are they may or may not be sleeping rough. Sheffield has dozens rather than hundreds of rough sleepers - eg people who regularly sleep on the streets (there might be people who do it once or twice before they are contacted). There is overnight provision for people who might otherwise sleep on the streets, and it is offered. The problem is not that there is no alternative to sleeping on the streets. The relative few who do sleep on the streets regularly do so for complex reasons: drink, drugs, mental health, violence etc etc. Very many more people are homeless but not sleeping rough - this includes families etc, who may have been evicted for example. They are not sleeping rough, but they don't have a home they can call their own. Instead, they are being put up in temporary accommodation like hostels or hotels or b&bs or whatever, or, sleeping on sofas or whatever. In other words, migrants (of any kind) aren't being better treated. Help is available for anyone with nowhere to stay. It's just that it's temporary, or not suitable in the long term, and probably expensive for the State. So the problem isn't necessarily with finding somewhere for people to live. The problem is that there isn't enough supply of social housing with affordable rents. But note that sadly the provision of social housing with affordable rent will not solve the issue of rough sleeping, because it has different causes. It's useful to read what Shelter say: https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/what_is_the_housing_emergency
  10. GPs and dentists can refer: https://www.sth.nhs.uk/charles-clifford-dental-service
  11. So the question here is how did Leeds, Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Leicester avoid having to introduce CAZ's? And why couldn't Sheffield do the same, therefore? In the case of most of these the reason is blindingly obvious. In Leeds, the switch to cleaner vehicles happened quicker than expected and air quality was within legal limits. So the CAZ was no longer required. If the same had been achieved in Sheffield, perhaps the same outcome would have been possible. Perhaps Sheffield Council should have done more to try to get there? Sheffield is offering grants I do notice that Leeds' air quality status report mentions that: The City Square project involves radically reducing traffic (https://leedscitysquare.commonplace.is/en-GB/news/city-square-enters-next-phase-of-construction-from-8-january-2023) In Nottingham, again the council could show that other measures would bring them below the air quality limits. On the link provided, among other things, it says that all Nottingham taxis and private hire vehicles would be required to be low emission, a decision that itself caused outrage: (https://www.cabdirect.com/taxi-trade-news/nottingham-drivers-outrage-at-low-emissions-order/). Nottingham also have city centre "clear zones", restricting vehicle access except by permit for much of the day. This is much more aggressive than anything I think Sheffield currently has. https://documents.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/download/1169 In Derby, as you say they went down a non-charging route - "traffic management". It's worth looking at what that involved. Their proposal is explained here: https://www.derby.gov.uk/media/derbycitycouncil/contentassets/documents/transport/airqualityplan/clean-air-consultation-document.pdf. First of all, it's worth noting that in Derby only one location exceeded the air quality limit. And the "traffic management" proposal is directly aimed at that by restricting traffic flow in the area. And given there was only the one exceeding location, that seems rational. In Southampton, their plan involved things like bringing buses up to standard, and enforcing new emissions standards for licensed taxis (https://www.southampton.gov.uk/business-licensing/licensing/taxis-private-hire/new-license-conditions/). It took them a year to get their plans approved (https://ashden.org/news/southampton-cuts-air-pollution-without-charging-drivers-through-greener-taxis-buses-and-deliveries/). They also banned out of town taxis from using city bus lines during peak periods. And in Leicester as you say air quality is now below the limit and so a CAZ isn't required. So, there's no trick to any of those. The councils were able to come up with plans short of a charging CAZ which they could convince government would bring about better air quality "in the shortest possible time". In some cases, air quality got better without the need for a CAZ. Is this the case in Sheffield? In others, other measures have been taken including strong taxi licensing measures and strict traffic control and pedestrianisation. In one city there was only one location exceeding the limit, so they're just enforcing measures at that point.
  12. If you read what actually happens with donations via Vision Aid Overseas, you can see they generate funds from the recycling of materials from donated spectacles. They don't say that they send lenses anywhere. https://www.bookaneyetest.co.uk/post/vision-aid-overseas#
  13. Specsavers have a recycling scheme: https://www.specsavers.co.uk/glasses/recycling But note they don't mention any re-use in developing countries. They do this instead, which seems better than just dumping old lenses on a country: https://www.specsavers.co.uk/news-and-information/vision-aid-overseas
  14. This from The Star: https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/boy-12-arrested-on-suspicion-of-murder-following-death-of-woman-injured-in-sheffield-crash-4095533
  15. That's not unusual, if you remember previous years.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.