Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

ECCOnoob

Members
  • Content Count

    4,603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ECCOnoob

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 30/06/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. ........in your uncorroborated opinion. Personally, I heard it all before. For some people no matter what figure gets put forward they will scream it never will be enough. Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. How many times over decades do we keep hearing the same....... the NHS is always allegedly destitute and on the brink of collapse, despite vast amounts being thrown at it each year...... Benefits are allegedly always too little for people get by, despite the fact that successive governments have made numerous tweaks and changes to not only the policies for the type of benefits available...The minimum wage is always allegedy too low and people struggling to survive, despite the fact that it is been subject to increases almost every single year since it's Inception.... Now suddenly the whines are starting that emergency Covid support is "not enough" for people to survive on despite the fact that it didn't even exist until the few weeks ago Taxpayer money is finite. Some people need to realise that and stop making ridiculous predictions just to do a bit of point scoring against the government.
  2. Without having the full details I would hazard a guess that the money negotiated comes with very specific purposes and very specific criteria. It is not supposed to be a top-up for the local authorities purses to do what they wish.
  3. That is not the same thing. You said "not allowed" which translates to being physically or otherwise it blocked from winning. Media manipulation, dirty tricks, political games and failure to win over the people who are actually going to vote for you is a whole different thing. Any failures arising from that scenario is solely on the candidate themselves nobody else. Ultimately, if a candidate is not appealing to the wider electorate and has some media against them they need to change their publicity and attack back. If their policies are not getting enough attention then they need to change them so they can be more sellable to the publishers and more eye catching to the masses who will be consuming it. If their personality is toxic and they give bad interviews in the papers and on television then you need to coach themselves to do better...... the list goes on. Whether we like to admit it or not an election boils down to just one giant popularity contest. Its Miss World for the men in suits. Are reality TV voting contest for those who read the broadsheet. Much as I would like it to be so, to reality is it really does not get much more cerebral than that.
  4. What are we defining as fair? What is the criteria that's applied? What sort of numbers are we talking about? How did those numbers compare with others? What formulas? I'm not blinkered in my views at all. I just reflect the practical realities instead of getting caught up in media hysteria, biased politicians stroking their egos nor make sweeping statements without facts. How could you possibly declare that 41 million is "a cop-out" The only people who will know such things will be those subject to negotiation and the person who eventually makes the final decision. On the face of it, when looking at the population numbers and applying comparisons with the monetary levels of support given to other regions it seems pretty much in the ball park to me. I have said before, as have other people on this thread, the money is not intended to be distributed to every single person in the region as a little windfall. It is there for those people and businesses who are in genuine financial distress and need assistance. People need to read the rules and get a grip. Of course some industries will feel a heavy impact from this whilst others will barely notice. A vast majority of people working white-collar positions will probably be carrying on as normal or at the very worst simply having to work from home. South Yorkshire is not particularly known as a hotbed for tourists and so may in fact feel the impact less than other cities or areas which depend heavily on visitor attractions and hospitality. It's all the balancing exercise which goes far beyond some moronic simplistic headline grabbing formula of breaking the figure down to a per person amount. One thing I will concede has pleasantly surprised me is that our regional mayor has reached his deal and agreement with far more dignity and professionalism than that across the Pennines.
  5. Why would I need to? I don't believe for one second that going into tier 3 automatically equals that every single person in a region is going to be out of a job and unable to earn a living. I don't believe that every single business is suddenly going to be on a knife edge and on the brink of of closing the doors forever. Rising above all the hysteria and anti-government rhetoric, a simple reading of the rules shows that shops, offices, schools, universities, public services, transport all remain open. Even in the the obviously more precarious world of hospitality, certain venues, particularly those serving food will still be able to do at least some business. Add on the fact that many people are already or will be able to work from home and carry on with their jobs as normal - it is blindingly obvious that not everybody is going to necessarily be financially impacted. For those who are genuinely suffering hardship that is what the financial support is there for. They are quite rightly the ones entitled to it - but it's not some windfall for the masses. Its support for those people and businesses who actually need it. Instead of people and certain politicians making meaningless per person comparisons to portray a negative image and manipulate the press why don't they spend some of that time properly assessing how many and for how long .
  6. This is not rocket science. They gave him a hard deadline. He rejected it. The default position is and always was 22 million. He knew that was the outcome but now he's bellyaching blaming all and everyone but himself. Who actually cares if he THINKS the lockdown is going to be 3 months or 9 months or 12-months or whether he alleges they need 90 million or 200 million or 100 billion.... That was not the reality of the topic under negotiation. Pretending that one is mystic meg is not much of a bargaining tactic It has been repeated by the government in the House and in several Media reports that that 60 million is still on the table ready for acceptance. All he has to do is make that phone call instead of whining in front of the cameras doing his ego filled power trip. On latest reports the discussions are "ongoing" so let's hope he sees sense. To be frank if there is any failure to be applied to the government it's the fact that there was a negotiation on this at all. If I had my way there would be a basic formula applied to the regions based on numbers of population and a fixed amount set which one could like it or lump it. Just what exactly does the Greater Manchester region think they are that gives them a right to apply demands and conditions over any other region. Certainly didn't see their neighbours down along the M62 creating such a fuss. They might have not liked the implementation but they didn't start threatening the government with a load of demands. Can't wait to see how our own unwanted unnecessary city region mayor responds. Will it be a Steve Rotheram scenario or Andy Burnham... place your bets now folks This is not rocket science. They gave him a hard deadline. He rejected it. The default position is and always was 22 million. He knew that was the outcome but now he's bellyaching blaming all and everyone but himself. Who actually cares if he THINKS the lockdown is going to be 3 months or 9 months or 12-months or whether he alleges they need 90 million or 200 million or 100 billion.... That was not the reality of the topic under negotiation. Pretending that one is mystic meg is not much of a bargaining tactic It has been repeated by the government in the House and in several Media reports that the 60 million is still on the table ready for acceptance. All he has to do is make that phone call instead of whining in front of the cameras doing his ego filled power trip. On latest reports the discussions are "ongoing" so let's hope he sees sense. To be frank if there is any failure to be applied to the government it's the fact that there was a negotiation on this at all. If I had my way there would be a basic formula applied to the regions based on numbers of population and a fixed amount set which one could like it or lump it. Just what exactly does the Greater Manchester region think they are that gives them a right to apply demands and conditions over any other region. Certainly didn't see their neighbours down along the M62 creating such a fuss. They might have not liked the implementation but they didn't start threatening the government with a load of demands. Can't wait to see how our own unwanted unnecessary city region mayor responds. Will it be a Steve Rotheram scenario or Andy Burnham... place your bets now folks
  7. From what I have read that's only because Burnham stubbornly refused the government's top line figure of 60 million. Perhaps if he he dropped the ego and realises that Manchester city region is perhaps not so important he thinks it is, the offer will still be on the table to him. It's not as if he is the only region already in tier 3 Does that region really have a mayor looking out in their best interests?? or is it a bit of a power trip by a failed Labour leader candidate desperately trying to push the boundaries of his limited devolved powers and influence. I do note said mayor seems be more than happy to put the entire country in a national lockdown but seemingly unwilling to respond to the obvious dramatic increases in infection in his is own responsible region unless of course he received a nice big fat payment...... hmmm.
  8. That's sort of what 'trials' are for. Developing and analysing whether something might work. Testing and checking to see if something does work. Then following up and checking again to see if it is still working and works for all. Covid is a previously unknown disease. There is going to be lots more of these trials and failures until any sufficient treatment is found. The USA might have bigged up this treatment has some miracle cure to make themselves look good and stroke their ego but that was far from the truth. It was still in clinical trial stage even after being rolled out to numbers of patients.
  9. Good. Glad you understand the simple concept. You choose to watch live broadcast television and therefore you choose to be liable for payment of the mandatory licence fee as according to the relevant law. The licence fee is required for any broadcast television. The fact that the government chooses to fund the BBC with it is irrelevant. The BBC could be disbanded tomorrow and you will still be liable for payment of a licence because that's what the law says. Are you really so naive to think that if the BBC disappeared the government would not find some other purpose from those revenues generated from licences to watch television signals.
  10. It's quite simple. They have contingencies for these sorts of things. They would find an alternative route to get where they need to go, they would swap over one emergency vehicle for another or if necessary they would simply shift it temporarily out of the way to allow access and replace it... the list goes on. You might be astounded to learn that these emergency responders are well trained in such circumstances - it's exactly why when there is a major incident or horrendous accident which requires dozens and dozens of responders it's all coordinated and they know exactly how and where they need to go. Just stop worrying your pretty little head about it. You are clearly so filled with irrational and unreasonable outrage for being slightly inconvenienced that you are the one whose lost all common sense.
  11. Well let's just hope lots of other people have the same sentiment next time you or one of your relatives or one of your friends is in desperate need of an ambulance you selfish moron. They are on an emergency call giving lifesaving treatment to someone. They quite rightly have absolute priority which goes well beyond inconvenience to a few motorists for an hour or so. Perhaps if you had a snip of the intelligence of those ambulance crew you would have done something along the lines of the very simple solution suggested by Dardendec above or at the very least contacted the hospital to explain the situation and attempt to rearrange your appointment. Your attitude is disgraceful.
  12. Yes i agree. Just like showbiz - politics is another one of those other sectors which seems to buck the trend. I am not particularly being ageist I'm just making a point that I don't know many average Joe's in average jobs who are still working full-time 5 days a week at the age of 70.
  13. Not sure I fully agree. In my opinion current affairs programs by their very nature should be heavy, dry and dull in presentation. I think it can be a slippery slope editorially that by trying to make them 'lighter' and 'more accessible' it inevitably leads to them being dumbed down with less focus on the facts and more focus on the personality - That is something that GMB with Piers Moron repeatedly fails on a multiple occasions. Whilst I can appreciate a second presenter breaks up the monotony - I must admit one thing I do get really frustrated with is this TV habit of of the two presenters saying one paragraph each on a script consecutively. It's a very bizarre concept that most normal people will never do in real life. At the very least if doing a speech with multiple people you would close off one topic and pass over to someone else for another not literally swap over dialogue after a few sentences.
  14. Oh I do hope so. In fact let's make them black AND gay that would really stick two fingers up to the knuckle dragers who still seem to take issue with someone's heritage and sexual preference.
×
×
  • 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.