Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Indeed, but decent voters won't like anti-semitism. It's not just offensive to Jewish people (I'm not Jewish, but it offends me). So, it's not just a matter of comparing the number of Jewish voters with the number of Muslim voters. That also presupposes that all Muslims are anti-Semitic, which I do not believe to be the case.


Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are some people who would readily be apologists for Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they are in a small minority, I would venture to suggest.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Blair has admitted that his policies were

> designed

> > to 'rub the establishment nose into

> > multiculturalism'.....

>

> No he hasn't, stop making things up.


Hang on, I'm interested to know if this point is true.


Source please Uncleglen? Something verifiable on Snopes preferably. I wouldn't put anything past Blair, but seeing as it's you I'd appreciate some proof otherwise I'll assume you've just pulled your usual stunt of dropping into a thread and making random bigoted assertions before running away from having to defend your position.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are

> some people who would readily be apologists for

> Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they

> are in a small minority, I would venture to

> suggest.


That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I took a view that he was entitled to free speech - not that I in any way agreed with anything he said. Because that's how free speech works.

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > uncleglen Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > Blair has admitted that his policies were

> > designed

> > > to 'rub the establishment nose into

> > > multiculturalism'.....

> >

> > No he hasn't, stop making things up.

>

> Hang on, I'm interested to know if this point is

> true.

>

> Source please Uncleglen? Something verifiable on

> Snopes preferably. I wouldn't put anything past

> Blair, but seeing as it's you I'd appreciate some

> proof otherwise I'll assume you've just pulled

> your usual stunt of dropping into a thread and

> making random bigoted assertions before running

> away from having to defend your position.


One of Blair's advisers in the early '00s, Andrew Neather, wrote an article much later in that beacon of truth the Evening Standard saying that the aim of Labour's immigration policy was to "rub the right's nose in diversity." This was leapt upon by the rightwing press and the Tories, although Neather himself quickly retracted and admitted the main aim of the policy was to fill jobs in the then booming economy and that any "multiculturalise the UK" policy was just an "impression" he had. Tony Blair has never, of course, said anything like what UG claims he has "admitted" and clearly it would have been suicidal for him to do so - actually if you Google "blair rub the establishment noses in multiculturalism" UG's comment makes it sixth out of the whole internet...it's the sort of cobblers people come out with when they get the majority of their information from Migrationwatch, I suspect.

I appreciate the help Otta and Rendell, but I have no intention of googling Uncleglens quotes. I'm much more interested to see how he actually backs up an argument.


He's apparently a teacher. All I can say is that if that's how he teaches young people to debate then, well, oh dear...



Anyway, back on topic, I doubt Ken can harm Labour in real terms any more than its already harming itself. He's gone beyond parody and anything he says can safely be disowned by Labour.

Having been personally involved in Left wing groups from far left to left of centre (the 'fence' as it is termed by the far left) I know there are hidden agendas -must read this book

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/12175813/Tony-Blair-accused-of-conspiracy-over-mass-immigration.html

I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's quote about destroying grammar schools- another great betrayal of the working classes of this country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash the uneducated isn't it!

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's

> quote about destroying grammar schools- another

> great betrayal of the working classes of this

> country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash

> the uneducated isn't it!


I just need something about Polish builders who live in council flats for a full house in uncleglen bingo!

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Having been personally involved in Left wing

> groups from far left to left of centre (the

> 'fence' as it is termed by the far left) I know

> there are hidden agendas -must read this book

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blai

> r/12175813/Tony-Blair-accused-of-conspiracy-over-m

> ass-immigration.html

> I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's

> quote about destroying grammar schools- another

> great betrayal of the working classes of this

> country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash

> the uneducated isn't it!



Right, ok, sorry...um, is that what you're using to back up your earlier claim?

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are

> > some people who would readily be apologists for

> > Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but

> they

> > are in a small minority, I would venture to

> > suggest.

>

> That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I

> took a view that he was entitled to free speech -

> not that I in any way agreed with anything he

> said. Because that's how free speech works.


You did indeed mention 'free speech' but free speech does not excuse anti-Semitism or racism (at least not in my eyes - or in the eyes of the criminal law).


But you then went further and posed this question...


"But as you asked before, robbin, had he said

> similar remarks about other groups, what would

> have been the reaction? You asked about black

> people? But what about Americans? Irish? Essex

> white van drivers? I suspect there would be

> wildly differing reactions, very much dependent on

> the group in question. What makes some worthy of

> Twitter outrage and some not? "


I may be wrong, but that seemed to me to go well beyond just saying Ken has a right to free speech and suggested that what is offensive, in this context, is all just a matter of someone's point of view - by using what I thought was a an offensive/crass comparison. When I pointed out the difference between white van drivers and victims of the holocaust, you didn't respond for 14 days. To be honest, I sort of expected some sort of recognition that the two are in no way comparable. That would have been fair enough - we can all write stuff we may later think could have been put better or differently. Instead you appear to stand by what you said while expressing indignation about what I wrote. I think that's a shame, but I'm sorry if I offended you.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > robbin Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

> >

> > > Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are some people who would readily be apologists for

> > > Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they are in a small minority, I would venture to

> > > suggest.

> >

> > That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I

> > took a view that he was entitled to free speech -

> > not that I in any way agreed with anything he

> > said. Because that's how free speech works.

>

> You did indeed mention 'free speech' but free speech does not excuse anti-Semitism or racism (at

> least not in my eyes - or in the eyes of the criminal law).

>

> But you then went further and posed this question...

>

> "But as you asked before, robbin, had he said similar remarks about other groups, what would

> have been the reaction? You asked about black people? But what about Americans? Irish? Essex

> white van drivers? I suspect there would be wildly differing reactions, very much dependent on

> the group in question. What makes some worthy of Twitter outrage and some not? "

>

> I may be wrong, but that seemed to me to go well beyond just saying Ken has a right to free speech

> and suggested that what is offensive, in this context, is all just a matter of someone's point

> of view - by using what I thought was a an offensive/crass comparison. When I pointed out

> the difference between white van drivers and victims of the holocaust, you didn't respond for

> 14 days. To be honest, I sort of expected some sort of recognition that the two are in no way

> comparable. That would have been fair enough - we can all write stuff we may later think could have

> been put better or differently. Instead you appear to stand by what you said while expressing

> indignation about what I wrote. I think that's a shame, but I'm sorry if I offended you.


Wow - so you were referring to me as 'readily being an apologist' in your post last night.


You really are a nasty, unpleasant piece of work, aren't you robbin?


And, I must say, not too bright, either (though that was suspected after your less-than-intelligent reply after I posted the photoshop mock-up of the Brexit bus a little while ago). That piece you've quoted was to try to make you see that YOU are very selective in those you would get upset about and/or grant free speech to. But you missed it. Sigh.


So I'll post this again, just for your benefit (though I suspect I am completely wasting my time)... ?If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.? - Noam Chomsky

Do calm down Loz and yes, you are wasting your time posting a diversionary quote from some other posting (which I was not referring to) from an academic who is well known for supporting the 'free speech' of holocaust deniers.


I get it, you think a person's right of free speech extends to anti-Semitic content just as it does to remarks about white van drivers. You are entitled to your point of view. I'm entitled to disagree with it.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Having been personally involved in Left wing

> groups from far left to left of centre (the

> 'fence' as it is termed by the far left) I know

> there are hidden agendas -must read this book

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blai

> r/12175813/Tony-Blair-accused-of-conspiracy-over-m

> ass-immigration.html

> I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's

> quote about destroying grammar schools- another

> great betrayal of the working classes of this

> country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash

> the uneducated isn't it!


Check who Anji Hunter is now married to :)

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do calm down Loz and yes, you are wasting your time posting a diversionary quote from some other

> posting (which I was not referring to) from an academic who is well known for supporting the

> 'free speech' of holocaust deniers.

>

> I get it, you think a person's right of free speech extends to anti-Semitic content just as it

> does to remarks about white van drivers. You are entitled to your point of view. I'm entitled to

> disagree with it.


So, if you understand that (and frankly, I'm really not convinced), why can't you see that treating everyone - no matter what their race or gender or political belief - equally, fairly and evenly is a good thing? Can't you see that? Why is that such an alien concept to you?


Again, that paragraph was not to reflect my beliefs - I think most people on this forum who have been around longer than you know that. It was for you to ask questions of yourself to see how you adjust your opinion based on factors such as people's race/gender/etc.


But I suspect I am wasting my time here. I think you are now going out of your way to be intentionally offensive. Which, ironically, makes you rather similar to intent to Livingston.


And yes, robben, I do believe you have the right to do just that because, as Chomsky wisely noted, free speech should be extended to everyone, even the nasty, unpleasant twerps.

Enough screeching Loz. While you may be right that you have a far higher IQ than I do, I suspect you may not have been on the receiving end of the sort of racism that I have in the past. Had you been, maybe you would also be sensitive to hearing other peoples' unacceptable comments defended as just being their 'right to free speech'.


All I'm saying is that unqualified 'free speech' of the sort you appear to advocate (and as the US academic Chomsky advocated) seems to me to be outdated, discredited and potentially dangerous. Society's moral compass has shifted in recent years and laws have changed to match. Those changes are designed to prevent people from spouting certain bigotry in this country (and in others), under cover of claiming it is their right to 'free speech'. Whether you like it or not, there IS a line. If someone crosses it, no matter what theories some American academics might have, they may be breaking the law, just as they are offending people.


So, you go ahead and quote Chomsky - and his support for the rights of holocaust deniers and the unqualified right to 'free speech', if you like. I'll still not agree with the concept of completely unlimited 'free speech' no matter how many times I'm told I'm thick.


As we both know each other's views now, I don't think there's any need for another rude late night reply from you.

Chomsky is almost up there with the bible - you can find a quote to back up any position you want if you look hard enough - he is well prolific.


if Ken did not exist, then Ken would have to be created as some dead German lunatic once nearly said. We all know Livingstone isn't really an anti Semite - he is an aged rascal who cannot help himself in keeping out of the camera eye - but is serves a purpose for everyone. A convenient bag of wrinkled skin to load up with the recalcitrant garbage of politics past and discarded like flotsam into the choppy waves of cutthroat politics. This isn't new or unique.



Everything else is covered in previous posts in once way or another.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...