Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ken's comments couldn't have come at a better/worse time dependant on your politics, Sadiq Khan is busily distancing himself and no doubt many Labour supporters and those fighting local elections will be seriously wishing Ken had not become involved. John Mann also will have serious questions to answer regarding his conduct today. Surely the last thing to do as an MP is to have a spat in front of live TV cameras.


Oh well what's next to come along in the news, Cameron must be pleased he is not in the mire today.

And I agree with Otta. I'm no fan of many policies of the Israeii state, but Israel exists, and that's just a geo-political reality. It's not going away, so why people act like it should/needs to is beyond me.


Israel is surrounded by people who literally want to destroy it. Those who oppose its policies on certain areas - and that includes me - need to remember that.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Very broadly speaking, someone who is anti western

> Middle East.

>

> If you want to get technical, then descendants of

> Shem, Ham, Japeth, ... Ishmael et al.

>

> Not someone who is anti-Jewish. If you mean

> anti-Jewish, then say that.



Fair enough. However, isn't there an argument to be made that over time it has become synonymous with solely anti-Jewish sentiment? I think a lot of people would struggle to see a difference. Although you're factually correct, have we perhaps reached the point where it is seen as a default term for hatred of Judaism?

Ok can someone explain things to me please.


For 100 of years there was anti-semitism across much of Europe. Shakespeare made fun of the Jewish money lender. This play was one of our course books at school. From my understanding in Britain in good times the monarchy were happy to use Jewish money when it was needed, then blamed the samme people when times were bad.


Then things got pretty horrid in parts of Eastern Europe, Russia and Germany. Clearly very horrid.


Then Britain made a hash up of the State of Palestine.


Then the US got seriously involved. And oil prices went through the roof. And then they choose sides between the arab countries they wanted to be friends with to guarantee the flow of oil and pissed off the rest. And then we all got involved in the various messes of Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Syria.


And Iran and Turkey retain massive geopolitical influence. And the US and their allies remain close to Israel.


It all sound like a friggin mess. As is Russia, Africa, SE Asia, and many of the other places the west/East intervenes in.


So I don't hate anyone. Well apart from Bono, but that is trivialising things.


What is wrong with talking about Israel's involvement in all of this? From what I understand there are a spectrum of opinions there too.


Did spend a week or so there in twenty years ago but views from that wont help this thread. I also expect Ken is bloody minded and wont do the decent thing and acknowledge when he has overstepped the mark.


Can someone explain things simply please?

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> This may help clear things up for some people.

>

> http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/statem

> ent-on-labours-problem-with-antisemitism-from-the-

> jewish-socialists-g?fb_action_ids=1015419463436857

> 3&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.VyJ65IREqRE.lik

> e


That really is mealy mouthed bullshit. Try this for a historical perspective from the left on left-wing anti-Semitism. http://www.thetower.org/article/the-holocaust-the-left-and-the-return-of-hate/

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> This may help clear things up for some people.

>

> http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/statem

> ent-on-labours-problem-with-antisemitism-from-the-

> jewish-socialists-g?fb_action_ids=1015419463436857

> 3&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.VyJ65IREqRE.lik

> e



Oh, so it's Ok because the Internet's found some Jewish people who are OK with this?


Bollox - the leadership of the Labour party is currently a disgrace - nasty extremism is just that at both ends of the political spectrum, and a major political party is now infested with it.

This is another good summary imo: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row-ken-livingstone-naz-shah-jeremy-corbyn-a7006176.html


I think Ken should be kicked out of the party personally. He's too divisive a figure and his bringing Hitler into a rebuttal against allegations of antisemitism, is pretty bizarre and unhelpful.


That said, there is a lot of mischief making on the part of Guido et al. and I don't buy the accusation that there is some bigger problem with the Labour Party being antisemitic generally.

I also thought the statement Jah posted was very good (I wouldn't expect a statement from "Jewish Socialist" to be unbiased, but I agreed with a lot of it)


I think some people feel that criticism of Israel - when not accompanied by criticism of, say, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc. - is unbalanced and unjustified. Maybe it is. But that still doesn't make it racist...

I thought the statement Jah posted was utter horseshit


"Not all Zionists are Jews" - really? Show me some criticism of Zionists/Zionism that doesn't necessarily imply that they are Jews


"Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism" I don't see much ambiguity or unknowingness in defending a suggested forced Jewish de-population of Israel by reference to Hitler


"Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders..." Because those making them were so remote from power within the Labour party that they could be ignored; now no longer the case


"The attack is coming from four main sources, who share agendas: to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Labour; to defend Israeli government policy from attack, however unjust, racist and harmful towards the Palestinian people; and to discredit those who make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy or Zionism as a political ideology

? The Conservative Party


? Conservative-supporting media in Britain and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources


? Right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community


? Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party"


Far and away the most vocal attacks are coming from the Parliamentary Labour Party who recognise that (a) this is electoral poison and (b) to their credit, that sometimes things really are black and white and you have to pick a side.

Pro-Palestine-Anti-State-Of-Israel has been a leftie 'given' for as many years as I can remember, but let's be honest, Ken's lost the plot on this one.


There might have been some kind of point in there (more of a historical footnote than a point I suppose) - but the attempt at making it and, worse still, trying to turn it into anything of value or worth that somehow means something in the current debate defies belief.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I think some people feel that criticism of Israel

> - when not accompanied by criticism of, say,

> Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc. - is unbalanced and

> unjustified. Maybe it is. But that still doesn't

> make it racist...


There was a very shouty man on LBC the other day (I'm on a week off - I give my brain a holiday... I don't listen to it on a regular basis... honest) who made that point, something along the lines of: "if you criticise Israel any more than any other nation than you're an anti-Semite". Apart from that being just totally idiotic logic, what irked me is the usually vocal compere just let it slide. Especially in comments sections of papers, Twitter, and the like, there's a really vocal group of people who are ready to strike as soon as any comment is made against Israel. It's like the Putin bots who jump to defend Russia's policies whenever some criticism of them appears. The worst outcome of all of this would be for people to get self conscious about criticising Israel's rubbish record on human rights and multi-culturalism.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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