*_ash_*

This might be what people argue with, I know. It's a private event, so it shouldn't be anything - would be my argument also. It probably benefits hotels, the train companies, and the people allowed to be inside selling hot dogs or beer for 10 quid, but not much else. I didn't benefit genuine taxi drivers (me at the time), I didn't work those nights as the whole place was gridlocked. Many other drivers felt the same, so it just left the door open for rogue drivers and drivers who rip people off.

Not read the thread as it's late, but the first thing that comes to mind is the disruption to Hillsbro folk... and my friend told me you can't go out and come back in. What?! If I was a local business, this would infuriate me. I'm sure there must be some good reason, maybe Hillsbro folk don't want thousands of people roaming the streets and it keeps them all inside one place... but I fail to see how there is any benefit to the area unless people can go to local places to eat and drink when they want (in between bands they don't want to see, for example). It strikes me as a little greedy. I only went when it was in town. I didn't actually go to the festival but the places linked to it, and town was absolutely packed. That's what it should be. Sheffield people and Sheffield businesses should benefit from it. The staff there, I also had first hand experience with, that some were treated terribly. In my taxi I picked up a girl from Chesterfield who said she spent the train fare and bus fare to get there to work, and they said, 'we have enough staff, we don't need you' - her parents then paid for me (taxi) to take her back to the station. I suppose these things all give me a negative opinion of this event now.

Need air con in the car. I think a few UK cars have to now, but before it was a luxury and expensive. Here, even cheap cars have AC otherwise absolutely no one would buy it!

The irony! I've long been thinking about doing a youtube film on 'How Britain is ****', based on comparisons to living is Asia. I worry it will take a long time and get a lot of negativity though.

It's perhaps easier to just do their performances behind a bulletproof screen, but with the same security as now. - I only saw a little about this story but saw so many comments from the left online that disgust me (jokes, I mean). These people don't realise they're their own worst enemy. The west is slowly going out of control, I think (but this is just a quick comment). - Also to earlier comments about visiting USA... I've been, nice people wherever I went.

I was simply bored of England. The lockdown did it for me, I had so much time to think. If not for covid, I'd still be in Sheff doing the same things. I just left for 3 months with the prospect of making it 6 months. That was March 2023. I suppose it's also different for me as I wanted to be amongst Chinese speaking people to practice and get better. (though where I live now isn't Chinese speaking - my path changed!)

Yeah. Built up places aren't quite as bad as you can walk in the shade of them. Where am now is all tree lined streets and that hugely reduces the heat. But in open areas, can't do it. You know it when there is no one around, and if locals are have lived all their lives there avoid it, no chance a brit can tolerate it! haha

I know all the criticism it gets, but it's all untrue. Life here is so much better. The only downside for me is the heat. Taipei is bad in summer, but I was right down south where it is tropical and absolutely brutal. I remember first summer and thinking why are men using sun umbrellas... then after about a week I bought one too! When there is no shade it's unbearable!

I thought of it, and did it. I came back this year in March and after 4 weeks I bought a ticket back here. Best decision ever.

Almost certainly not now, but maybe 10 20 years ago, this would be a good location for a nightclub. Sell the car park off and use the building.

I don't read it anymore. I can't read the actual paper as I live in Asia now, but their website is completely unreadable, so I don't use that either! haha

Yeah, I agree, I think it's ok for now. There is still plenty of land up for grabs, but that land value will be increasing as long as people are buying property there. If I owned that Wickes and it was making money, I would hold on until land space was just about run out, and by then it will be extremely valuable land, especially because much of it is riverside.

There were two reasons in the OP... and it didn't say that was the primary reason. I would argue there are at least three reasons... economic challenges would be my guess for second, and CAZ maybe third or later. My understanding is that Wickes was (or maybe still is) a family company. I remember going there last time and thinking it's far better to go to B and Q. Wickes (the moor) was quite limited with stock and choice. My own opinion only, is that Wickes has had its day for this type of location, and no longer can compete with out of town bigger stores like BQ and a couple of other big chains mention in the post before. I seem to recall that the Rutland Road one was good, but the Moor one wasn't. Also, this plot of land now, whether owned by Wickes or someone else is likely to be worth far more than what this place makes. It's a prime location for student flats, and if you see how much rent these people are charging the students, you'd know why. My Beijing friend rented in what was Stokes Tiles and was paying £900 a month. Maybe if at a push, I would say CAZ is the last nail in the coffin. The argument that going to the Rutland Road store to avoid CAZ doesn't hold up, unless someone is coming from the north of the city, as the ring road is included in CAZ.

His freedom of movement and open borders for one. His attempting to copy tory policies with no thought, also were terrible. (that wasn't so much left wing, it was an attempt at vote winning and boosting the economy). The tories never did, and couldn't reverse them, also has left the country in part, in the state it is in now. The list of things Blair got wrong and such is too long and off topic. 1st bold: I agree with it, and it's not something to celebrate. Labour won not by Starmer being any good (he could be, but that's not the point) , he's won because the tories have been in a mess for years. Even tory voters know this. 2nd bold, goes back to what the earlier poster said that I read a report in their post. I am NOT saying privately educated people are good at running governments. I just don't follow this narrative that just because you grew up in a poor family, that you know more about running a country. 3rd bold - a lot of this, isn't brexit actually, it's the pandemic response. During the pandemic, the opposition did absolutely nothing to support the government. NOTHING. They never opposed decisions (until later, when they started moaning about where things were bought from - which was all hindsight, so completely meaningless in my eyes). They never gave any ideas on how to do things better. They never said anything. Weak opposition. The only thing worse than a weak government is a weak opposition, and they were incredibly weak. For me that's a worrying state of affairs for a country. We've now lost a weak government and inherited a new weak government. You're impressed that he has now taken her out of the spotlight into a no doubt scrutinised position? Really what has your country come to? Oh? Is she rich? I didn't know that!

The poster before showed a graph showing the percentage of 'state educated' PMs. Clearly showing Labour have more, but my point was that this isn't much of a claim to fame, since all of the Labour PMs left the country in a dire situation. (much like now with what the tories have done, and hence they have collapsed and lost votes) His ideology is far more left wing than he ever said. He was charismatic and people were sick of the tories. Now the same but the other way around. It's like a merry-go-round of nonsense the politics in your country. I've messed up the quote (and not even attempting to fix it, quoting is much harder these days, but I read the first one, and a very interesting read. It's from the perspective of someone who grew up in boarding schools (from 8 - and also is the view of someone who never went to state school. What he said is what I think we all know a little about these expensive elite schools. He doesn't have any experience of state schools to compare. It seems like a much greater version of what I remember of state schools. Spoken like a true leftie. Burnham and Raynor (more specifically Burnham) have grown up to just hate everyone who is richer than them, and just want to 'politely' take their money off them, regardless of whether they deserve it or not. I couldn't quote this Lizzie as you wrote in my quote (not easy with this software) I'm sure NMW was £3.40, but I could be wrong. Either way, everyone in the company I worked at kept their current rate which was more than NMW, but they were soon out of the door if they made a mistake and replaced with NMW employees which saved the company money and more money for the bosses. Still, no one saw that side of it, unless they experienced it. NMW is something I am totally against, and I consider it to have caused more damage to Britain than most policies (not as much as the Blair policy of relaxing gambling laws which meant every other high street shop in towns became a betting shop). You said you were earning too much to claim benefits, which I don't understand if you were on minimum wage, but I suspect you wrote 'earn' instead of savings, because you said your hubby had just been made redundant, and he he got a payout of more than 'x', then you wouldn't be entitled to it. (I don't know what the 'x' was in 1997, but today, I think you can't claim if you have about 5 or 6K in the bank).