Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Seems to me that about the only difference in both your arguments stems from an early misunderstanding and that you actually agree on all the key points. . Which i also agree with but have not joined in on for fear of arthritis setting in by using a phone keypad to type this

Like I said a complicated history. You've just promoted one side of it. When the republic of greece was formed many turks and greeks were expelled to the other side of the new border. Attrocities were conducted by both sides. When Turkey went in it was because it had the interests of the ethnic/cultural turks. It set up a defence border when the Greek military junta attempted a coup following internecine attacks between the communities. in other words turkey did not attack.


Both sides however were culpable but unfortunatley in the UK we all sing from the same hymn sheet.


The irony however is that the Turkish Cypriots are somewhat like the Kurds in that they do not wish to be ruled by the Greeks - yet in this instance it is wrong... So, why should the withdraw if it will lead to more ethnic cleansing - hasn't there been enough already?

downsouth Wrote:

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

> Like I said a complicated history. You've just

> promoted one side of it. When the republic of

> greece was formed many turks and greeks were

> expelled to the other side of the new border.

> Attrocities were conducted by both sides. When

> Turkey went in it was because it had the interests

> of the ethnic/cultural turks. It set up a defence

> border when the Greek military junta attempted a

> coup following internecine attacks between the

> communities. in other words turkey did not attack.

>

>

> Both sides however were culpable but unfortunatley

> in the UK we all sing from the same hymn sheet.

>

> The irony however is that the Turkish Cypriots are

> somewhat like the Kurds in that they do not wish

> to be ruled by the Greeks - yet in this instance

> it is wrong... So, why should the withdraw if it

> will lead to more ethnic cleansing - hasn't there

> been enough already?



Cyprus was ruled by the Ottoman Turks, from 1571-1878, then Britain annexed the island after the First World War. The Greek Cypriots of Cyprus have, always, strived for ENOSIS - union with Greece - and, in the 1950's a terrorist group - EOKA - fought with their colonial masters to gain independence. In 1960, Cyprus was declared independent and became a republic, with the Greeks and Turks sharing power - until 1963, when the ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriots began.

Britain, Greece and Turkey were the guarantor powers of Cyprus and had the right to intervene if the need arose. In 1974,

the Greek junta decided to over-throw President Makarios and unite Cyprus with Greece. The UN has been in Cyprus since 1963 and the Turkish Cypriots continue to be discriminated against, as they have been for well over fifty years. They voted YES in a referendum to unite the island - the Greek Cypriots voted No and were accepted into the European Union. To date, the Turkish Cypriots continue to be discriminated against and, since 1963, Turkey still waits to join the EU.

Fish - I don't disagree with what you say but it's not as easy as saying 'the Ottomans ruled for 300 years' ergo it was a Turkish country, it wasn't. Empires as re formed by ruling over the dispossed but it can never last - even Rome toppled. I'm sure you know that the Ottomans weren't the best colonial masters (Armenia, Cyprus to name a few massacres) and had built up a boiling cauldron's worth of animosity on the island. So once again, it aint that simple. It's not turks are bad greeks good or the other way round but instead aint this planet *hit, we all **** up sometimes, but we've all got to share it?


I am optimistic about the North's prospects provided Sarkozy and the Austrians don't get their way - which is looking less likely with admission of the new Europe brigade.

Well, the British weren't exactly good colonial masters themselves - didn't they inherit most of their empire from the Ottomans? Whatever the rights and wrongs of world history, the Turkish Cypriots have been let down very badly by Europe and the world. It is an absolute disgrace that in 2007, they should be treated so appallingly. Then again, the civil war in Bosnia wasn't that long ago. So much for equality? Some people would say it is a muslim thing - but "I could not possibly comment".
I don?t really want to get involved in this but just want to comment the following. As someone who has visited both Greece and Turkey, as I?m sure many others have. It is glaringly noticeable how similar their cultures really are. Except for that one all important factor, religion.

Brendan Wrote:

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

> I don?t really want to get involved in this but

> just want to comment the following. As someone who

> has visited both Greece and Turkey, as I?m sure

> many others have. It is glaringly noticeable how

> similar their cultures really are. Except for that

> one all important factor, religion.


Which seems to be the root of all trouble. And yet, Ataturk - the founder of modern Turkey - based the constitution of the Republic of Turkey on secularism. How he must be turning in his grave, now?

Mockney Piers said: ..."we separated church and state some time ago I believe" Sorry to disabuse you of this notion but CofE is still the established church. Not claiming that's right, but is the position.


PS. superb picture of Ataturk in hairdressers in Old Kent Road

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Mockney Piers said: ..."we separated church and

> state some time ago I believe" Sorry to disabuse

> you of this notion but CofE is still the

> established church. Not claiming that's right, but

> is the position.

>

> PS. superb picture of Ataturk in hairdressers in

> Old Kent Road



Was his picture in a female/male or unisex hairdressers? I say this because the new President's wife covers her hair, due to her Islamic beliefs, and such things were banned by Ataturk - especially in government buildings - but does this mean she is banned from living in the Presidential residence? Does anyone know? Oh, the irony of it all.

Unbelievably so. Cypriots first - religious afetrwards and the funny thing is, for Cyprus at any rate, neither side are terribly devout.


Brendan Wrote:

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

> I don?t really want to get involved in this but

> just want to comment the following. As someone who

> has visited both Greece and Turkey, as I?m sure

> many others have. It is glaringly noticeable how

> similar their cultures really are. Except for that

> one all important factor, religion.

There really are very few examples of wars where religion was the primary causal factor.

At a pinch the first crusade and the explosion of conquest at the birth of Islam.


Setting aside the usual conquest/empire/resource wars of the past (*ahem* honest), in the post war period we had lots of post colonial conflicts throught the distorting lens of the cold war.


For the most part though it's nationalism, coupled with uncertainty, fear and extremists and/or nasty politicians using the expediency of fear to their own nefarious ends, generally to shore up their local power base.

Ooh, now we have a REALLY long list...


This was a very informative read on two notorious cases of recent times

The Key to my Neighbour's House

Certainly true of the Turkish Cypriots - muslims - but the Church has always tried to influence the politics of the Greek Cypriots, which is a shame as the two communities share the same culture and are distinct from the mainland Greeks and Turks. The European Parliament missed a very good opportunity and the Cyprus problem could have been resolved - had both communities been accepted into their exclusive club - not just those who made no concessions and refused re-unification. And they say that the EEC is not a Christian Club? Will there ever be a time when all people will be equal and free - from oppression, proverty and war? We can only live in hope........

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> There really are very few examples of wars where

> religion was the primary causal factor.

> At a pinch the first crusade and the explosion of

> conquest at the birth of Islam.

>

> Setting aside the usual conquest/empire/resource

> wars of the past (*ahem* honest), in the post war

> period we had lots of post colonial conflicts

> throught the distorting lens of the cold war.

>

> For the most part though it's nationalism, coupled

> with uncertainty, fear and extremists and/or nasty

> politicians using the expediency of fear to their

> own nefarious ends, generally to shore up their

> local power base.

> Ooh, now we have a REALLY long list...

>

> This was a very informative read on two notorious

> cases of recent times

> The Key to my Neighbour's House



Who would have thought that such atrocities could have taken place on European soil? It beggars belief that the whole world can stand by and do nothing - and intervene where they should, yet stick their beaks where they shouldn't! And what

about that old tyrant Mughabe? When will the world and those that govern, actually do the right thing? Why did millions die, in both world wars and other conflicts? We have learnt nothing! Then again, those at the top who make the decisions are not the ones who are sent to do the dirty work!

  • 2 weeks later...

Indeed, typical rebel alliance. In trying to keep everyone happy by producing their own patent free version of the Incom craft, they not only did it under a PFI deal, they got the wookies to make the wings, the ewoks to make the weapon systems and the bl00dy French to make the engines.

I believe they then got connex to coordinate the attacks on the death star; how they managed to defeat the empire I'll never know, even with the use of the force (though now they have to call it the service, force was deemed to be too aggressive sounding)

It was a classic case of making up for weak policies and a lack of ideas among the Sith party.

Deflect public attention away with an expedient war against a largely toothless enemy and build a white elephant that is 20 times more large and powerful than was necessary; go hugely over budget and get embroiled in disputes with the unwisely chosen Firrerrian contractors and their shoddy working practices (not to mention endless kashykkian coffee breaks) who only got the job thanks to some dodgy bungs sent the way of the corrupt civil service.


The money would have been far better spent bribing the races who joined the alliance mostly out of spite as they lost access to government contracts and saw their health provision slashed; bolstering the traditional fleet and making sure that the stormtroopers' armour wasn't next to useless.


But then it isn't as glamorous and sexy as a big metal moon that blows planets up. Someone should really have explained hubris to Palpatine, the pesky kids will win every time if you let em.

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...