Jump to content

ECCOnoob

Members
  • Content Count

    4,335
  • 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. Absolute nonsense. How can it be right to let one direction of traffic on the same junction flow quite freely and the other direction of traffic be forced to leave artirial road go up a narrow street, compete with cars already queuing to get into John Lewis car park go up a second narrow street competing with shoppers, students and boozers on the slim payments of Division Street. How is that possibly creating less traffic pollution and hazard than simpy allowing both directions to freely flow between Charter Square and Furnival Gate which is what it was designed for. Isn't the reality that they didn't have the balls to close it off altogether because they knew the owners of certain departments stores and car parks would raise hell - so instead they have bodged it with a lazy crude solution which now just causes havoc to the surrounding smaller streets.
  2. Some would question what was there to cover up? IF the official line is to be accepted he hasn't done anything wrong. There is no cover up because there is no wrongdoing. IF the official line is accepted then all that has actually happened is two newspaper outlets trying to sell more copies and advertising revenue have done some joint hatchet job to try to create a story that isn't there. I'm not saying whose right or wrong in this. There is clearly some murky water somewhere. However, all I am trying to set out is that there are two polar opposite positions and if it's the former then there's no cover up accusations could be made because nothing happened.
  3. Yes I do actually. I think for businesses about to decide whether or not to invest huge amounts of money into a location, access and public transport is high on the agenda. Even more so when we are not just talking about offices but we are also talking about retailers for whom the question of how people get to their doors and where their footfall is coming from is absolutely vital considerations. These are not issues to be sniffed at.
  4. I'm totally lost about what this is supposed to achieve. As far as I understand it most of Pinstone Street is already closed off to general traffic and the only vehicles allowed are public transport or authorised access such as deliveries. At the moor end, thanks to the council's ingenious design of blocking off one side of the road to furnival gate - traffic is left with absolutely no choice but to go onto Pinstone Street and then are shunted around Burgess Street towards John Lewis. Unless the council are going to completely redesign the access to John Lewis's car park traffic will still have no option but to go that way. The council are certainly not going to upset John Lewis - in fact they will bend over backwards and think of England to make them happy because they are petrified of losing the only prime asset we have got in the city centre the meadowhall doesn't. To me if these proposals are accurate it seems the council has got to try and redesign the entire road network from Charter Square to John Lewis car park and change at least a dozen or more bus routes which will no longer go through the prime artery of the city centre shopping areas. I can't see that going down well with the retailers and brands who have chosen to invest millions on the council's heart of the city developments. Nor do I imagine will it be particularly pleasing to HSBC and CMS and Radisson hotels who have signed a dotted line to move into their brand new shiny buildings. "....Oh sorry lads we're just going to cull the bus routes and transport access that goes to your front doors..." All seems very odd to me.
  5. Thank you. That's helpful. So it appears that, as per usual, some people are all too quick and excitable to start finger pointing and making comparisons about how great other countries are doing things without actually understanding the full context and facts to make it relevant to our own situation.
  6. Good grief. If the desperation to continually criticise the government has reached the depth of someone's accent and pronunciation the barrel is well and truly being scraped.
  7. Are they paying 5-day wages?
  8. If you watch the news you will see that plenty of people in America are arguing quite bluntly that without "profit" there is no income, no livelihoods, no jobs, no economy and people will starve to death. At what point does something have to give? We are very privileged in this country. Despite all the detractors and the serial complainers we still have a welfare state. We have a safety net. Not everywhere does and America certainly doesn't have anything like what can be deemed reasonable welfare. For a big majority across the pond and lots of other countries - you earn or you starve. There has to be a point at which this still minimal risk of dying from this virus is massively outweighed by the very real risk of having no income to support your family and potentially catastrophic effects on the wider economy.
  9. Oops. Well spotted. Teach me for using speech recognition.
  10. Oh no no no you don't understand. THEY don't have any concept of what what the job involves. They are totally blind to the simple and obvious fact that he will have a diary full of meetings, briefings, committees and non-parliamentary sessions booked in all day every day. They don't think for a second that he has reams of paperwork to be read and considered and approved nor that he will have to deal with dozens and dozens of phone calls each day or liaise and manage and organise his teams of staff on 101 different issues. It might come as a shock to some people but there is more going on in government than just the covid-19 virus. No no they expect him to be on camera all the time every single move in the public glare and constantly monitored by the media. As far as they are concerned the entire rest of the government and civil service doesn't exist. It's just him. One man. Who they demand to be omnipresent. Every single briefing, every single interview, every single public appearance, every single house committee, every single parliamentary session he must be there. To them any lack of attendance is 100-percent inexcusable. To them it's not for the obvious reason that he doing something elsewhere but in their tiny minds he's off on holiday or hiding or at one of his tens of properties that he allegedly owns. They want him to be like trump constantly tweeting so we all know he's there and present. We all know how that ends up. It's pathetic. This constant negative commentary and barrage of attacks is absolutely counterproductive. It's the boy who cried wolf and when the day comes when something arises that really deserves criticism it will just be drowned out.
  11. People wanting to work from home is only one side of the argument though. I know from my own office that not everyone thinks the same way. While some are clearly thriving on the home working scenario others are not For some people working from home they feel extremely isolated and lonely, unproductive, constantly distracted and suffering increased stress and anxiety because they are away from their support network and having to try and do their jobs while surrounded by their children, partner and other distractions. Furthermore, not everyone is privileged enough to have a house or a large enough space to give them a clear, defined, private and suitably equipped work space in which to spend all day everyday. Working at the dining room table or on the kitchen worktop temporarily for a couple of days is one thing but it's a whole different ball game to be doing it full time. I certainly do think that companies will take the opportunity to consider more agile working as a permanent thing however there is also a risk that they will use it as an opportunity to cut costs and avoid maintaining vast office spaces. There has to be some compromise and consideration of both sides' needs. As for travel, whilst I agree that the daily commute will certainly reduce the numbers and that is not a bad thing, I am not wholly convinced that is going to eliminate business travel that significantly. Anyone who has suffered a jittery pixelated conference call with more than around 4 people on will realise that large-scale business meetings and more important focussed discussions will still need to be taken place in person. Many demonstrations, sales, legal hearings, contracting reviews and audits will also still be done face to face. The technology is still not quite there yet and our human nature is far from ready for a world of constantly being on camera in a virtual world.
  12. I would be curious what the counter effect of carbon emissions is with the increased energy consumption caused by everybody individually working or been schooled at home rather than going to a single purpose built workplace will be. People may well not be travelling around as much but there will certainly be increases in energy use with everybody spending all day every day logged on and the obvious effect of all the extra hours of lights, heat, computers and televisions. it is already been widely reported that it has had an impact on domestic energy billing so sure there must be some impact with the actual carbon emissions as well.
  13. Apologies for my obvious typo. Now corrected.
  14. So? Lots of viruses are transmitted the same way. It was not exactly a surprise announcement. At that time in January the virus was still thousands of miles away and mostly confined to one area of China. When the first two cases hit the UK they were immediately quarantined as were the other 83 British nationals evacuees directly out of Wuhan. Not exactly an incompetent response. Let's not forget that the WHO themselves did not declare a global pandemic until 11 March 2020. Bear in mind the resistance already present regarding the lockdown situation now - do you really think it's feasible that the Government would have got away with such a thing all the way back in January, being a time when to many, the virus was nothing more than just a news story happening on the other side of the world.
  15. That's quite a bold statement for a lay person to say. How do you know the questions arent being answered "properly" Unless you are suitable academically qualified doctor how could you know. Even if you were why does your opinion outweigh that of the responding person to the question and what is your evidence to counter their position? This is the point. Is it more the case that people either don't understand the answer being given or that they are not being given what they want to hear. Someone not understanding or not liking the answer to a question doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't been answered.
×
×
  • 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.