Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ECCOnoob

  1. Where is the physical contact if watching someone on a camera hundreds or thousands of miles away? Where is the sexual activity is they are simply posing, stripping, teasing, parading, grinding to camera on recorded or live feed videos viewed by multiple viewers? I maintain camera girls/boys different category to prostetution. If we deemed it ok for some woman to get her tits out for the lads all over the national newspapers... If it is acceptable for hordes of over-excitable women to go to a Theatre to have some Magic Mike type waggling his massive wang around and gyrating over half the crowd, what exactly is the problem with somebody engaged in the same type of behaviour on a camera feed.
  2. Who are you or anyone else to judge. These are perfectly legal operations and registered corporations just like any other business. I wouldn't categorise it in the same as prostetution. How about calling them models. We had plenty lads mags, page 3 topless girls in national newspapers, blue clubs and even burlesque and strippers being openly welcomed to perform in theatres or clubs and for male striptease even making it to prime time television. Hardcore Pornography in both written, film, television and online video is a multi-billion pound industry. Just because someone's people's personal taste and dislike think it disgraceful, doesn't detract that ultimately it's a legitimate job that some people choose to do and for some find it quite lucrative. Like with anything else, media evolves. camera shows are no different to that. Boiling it down, its really nothing too far on than a modern-day peep show or strip club. We are not Victorian prudes anymore. As long as it's been done by freedom of choice without duress or trafficking - it's business at the end of the day. If they can make money out of flashing there their wobbly bits and have enough attractiveness to keep viewers interested, good on them.
  3. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am simply pointing out that the ambiguous wording in the police statement raises far more questions which IMO could have been avoided. Its not automatically a conspiracy theory just to point out something odd. To many there is a big difference between something being "dropped" due to X having no jurisdiction to ask such questions and something being "concluded" and the findings being passed on to Y. If the police deemed it outside their remit to be asking questions on tax affairs why didnt they say so immediately, drop it and pass it straight over to the HMRC etc back then. Why, as it appears, did they proceed to spend weeks of time and resources investigating something they now miraculously claim was outside their remit but still satisfactorily enough to clearly reach some form of "conclusion" of no further action. But then make the additional point of declaring they have sufficient something to be sent on to the local authority and HMRC. Hardly unreasonable to ask for clarification. Did the police have remit to ask the questions or not? If not, why have they knowingly undertaken an investigation outside of their remit to a sufficient level to conclude no further action? Why, if no further action, did they consider it necessary to still refer their findings to other authorities? Do you not see how that seems odd. I cant be the only one. Do you not see how such is just ripe for accusations of insider job, interference, friends in high places from either or both sides of the spectrum.... Like I said earlier, going to be a busy night for their PR team, twitter has already started with the mud slinging.
  4. This is what I find slightly odd. GMP better get their press office prepared because their statement seems to raise more questions than answers. One minute they're saying "dropped the investigation". The next saying "investigation is concluded" the next saying "they have no jurisdiction to be answering questions on council tax and personal tax matters".... but then adding on they "referred their findings to the local authority and HMRC" Is she clear or not? If their investigation was dropped because they didn't have the jurisdiction, why's it took so long. It surely should have been an instant rejection that could have been turned around in two days. If their investigation was concluded well, that surely means they did have authority to answer questions. Otherwise, how have they reached some conclusion and what on earth have they found to be referring to the tax authorities? As far as I'm aware the HMRC have said nothing publicly that they are not taking further action and that came from an unidentified "Labour Source".... but how does that Labour source know, who told them their decision before it became public record? and if it is correct, why did Raynor not be all over it quashing the investigation. What sort of inner workings are being churning in the background here. Just going to be more mid that's going to be thrown around and more fuel to the fire.
  5. Based on the goon's warped logic even the Cathedral would seem fall outside the definition of their fantasy 'city centre' boundaries.
  6. Well then those 'lots of people' are morons aren't they. The city centre is defined by geographical boundaries. That's it. That's all it ever is. Not uncorroborated ill-informed opinions about what shops and business count and what doesn't.
  7. There is quite an obvious reason why Manchester's "largest arena in the UK" attracted so much national press coverage. I think we can do without that sort of publicity dont you. As others have said there has been plenty of press coverage about Cambridge Street Collective and given the crowds in its first few days plenty have obviously heard about it.
  8. I know exactly what you are talking about, but as I said, there are already rules in place about carrying such things. Chefs and Butchers can't go around carrying handfuls of knives and cleavers. Contractors are not free to be popping out to the shops wandering around openly carrying saws and axes and blades. However, like all these things, Police cannot be everywhere at all times. They cannot be stopping everyone and ultimately situations do happen. Yes they may be the occasions when darling little Darren or Wayne grabs a kitchen knife from mummy's kitchen and goes to meet their mates to 'look hard' and then accidentally proceeds to stab someone. But that again comes down self and parental responsibility, not just simply banning everything.
  9. Controls in the purchasing, age restrictions and carrying of items used as weapons already exists. But you can't simply do a blanket ban on knives otherwise how will people ever be able to buy and possess cutlery or kitchen equipment or tools or camping equipment...
  10. Here is a link to the article with BOTH sides of the argument for some actual context. BBC News - Smartphone ban for kids is worth considering - MPs - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmm0zgx9zno This is not just MPs coming up with some silly idea on a whim. There are some genuine concerns and evidence reports. But, as I've said before, when this debate has come up, a lot of the issues are stemming from parental control and lack of actual supervision, not the simplistically blaming the devices themselves. Education and proper parenting I feel are key rather than just a blanket ban.
  11. Think you need to learn some geography. Since when was Castle House and Orchard Square not in the city centre.
  12. Oh really. Cutleryworks has been running since November 2018 and was voted UK best food hall for two years running. Kommune opened in March 2019 and despite decimated trade during the pandemic is still going today. Sheffield Plate is coming up to its third year running. If us Sheffielders have no interest and will not pay the prices in these things we have a funny way of showing it. That 'novelty' is certainly taking a long time to wear off.
  13. If trivial things like potholes in the roads and a bit of sewage in the rivers is the best possible examples you could come up with to desperately try and demonstrate a complete failure of neoliberalism - you are pretty much disproving your own point.
  14. Waaa waaa... when are they going to call the election. Why doesn't Sunak get on with the announcement. Why are they stalling. Waaa waaa... Why has he called it now. It's all too soon. What was he thinking announcing so early. Seriously think sometimes who on earth would want to represent the public. No matter what you do it will never be right. It will never be quick enough but always be too rushed.... It will never be big and far enough but always be too big and too far. It will never be enough money spent but will always be complained about costing too much. Fickle don't even come close.
  15. Are we seriously still doing this. I'm a corporate lawyer who works for a global law firm. I'm not a partner. I'm not chief of the executive board. I don't run our global headquarters. I'm just a lawyer like the other 1000+ lawyers in our company who act for multinational corporations in corporate, finance or employment disputes. I don't claim to know every single aspect about the world of global corporations nor do I claim to have personal intricate knowledge of every billionaire. But my job of 20 plus years gives me a damn sight more insight and awareness into corporations, global markets and the realities of business compared to some of nonsense and totally wild presumptions posted by some on this thread. Now you can choose to believe what I am or not, but for god sake can we move on.
  16. But it's not though. It's a subsidiary company among many other subsidiary companies under a conglomerate owned by an Emirati and based in Dubai which is operating vessels registered as far and wide as Cyprus, The Bahamas, Finland, The Netherlands and Malta. We are well and truly in a globalised economy and corporate structure is extremely complicated.
  17. Spoil your ballot then. They still have to look at it. They still have to take notice of it and the more people who do that the more chance of change with better candidates on offer.
  18. Easier said than done when you are operating vessels across the globe with multinational crew originating and living in 101 different countries each week wildly different currency valuations, taxes, cost of living, cost of accommodation....
  19. Where the hell did I say I was an executive or high flying. More nonsense you are making up. Obviously failing to note the 6 hour gap between my posts. You know when I've been doing that thing called work. But hey don't believe me - no skin off my nose. I know perfectly well what I do for a living. I know perfectly well who my clients are and stand by my points because some of us actually do know what we are talking about.
  20. All seems truly bizarre case to me. I admit I've not really been following the story closely but so much doesn't make sense. As far as I can see the ledmill operators are merely tenants. The landlord (who also just happens to own a nightclub type business wants them out to continue a club business but under his own terms and own branding). On a basic level, that's surely perfectly acceptable when THEY own the building. I really don't understand how the ledmill operators as merely tenants can be behaving so petulantly and almost aggressively about something which they don't even possess or own. Even more bizarre when they seemingly are bringing human rights arguments into it as if they've got some moral campaign to support all business tenants. That's quite some arrogance there. Much as I appreciate the ledmill has some legacy in the city, those memories are predominantly from increasingly ageing population who probably haven't been to a club in the past decade. Wonder how many of the star names and big champions of the place will be known to the latest generation of clubbers. If all these music greats loved the place so much as they claim to support, I'm sure they could have easily scraped enough money together to buy out the current lease 10 times over.
  21. Don't you think that all of those things will have been considered when the planning application to convert its use was assumingly granted. The point the I was making is that lots of buildings don't have purpose-built access points. Some aren't even anywhere near a road. They make provisions for such things all the time. The Rawson Spring, for example, has to receive constant deliveries and will do so via Walkley Lane. There is a bus pull in a few meters round the corner on either side of these apartments that could be utilised temporarily. I'm sure people who need to worry about such things will figure it out as they've done many times before.
  22. Do you not have days off, breaks, downtime or travel periods in your job then? I am more than capable of responding to posts and engaging in a debate in between my work. The snarky stereotyping and what you believe the corporate world is in your post goes to my point. People making ill informed presumptions.
  23. Yet, somehow they manage to cope in cities all over the world.
  24. That I will agree with. So why do so many people filled with green eyed envy continually attack all and every wealthy, successful and the billionaires as if they are scum... as if they all should be cowering down to the general public... as if they should be morally obligated to be giving away their fortune 'just because'... as if they should be constantly scrutinised putting on public displays of their generosity at all times... as if they should be compelled to show and prove and justify they are 'real people'.... as if acceptable for them to be criticised and attacked for choosing to keep their finances private and actions quiet... As if whatever personal donations or charity causes they choose to make is not enough and should constantly be more
  • 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.