Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'll do mine first Tractorlad, and then I'll be over to you, don't hold yer breath though.





Tractorlad Wrote:

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

> Investigating a suspected immigration issue? Just

> a guess. I suspect you might have too much time

> on your hands. If it help, I've a stack of

> ironing at home if you're bored? Thanks.

Did it say "Immigration Enforcement"? A dodgy bunch, they dress and use vehicles like coppers but actually aren't. They're supposed to use warrants to raid premises they suspect of housing or employing illegal immigrants but actually in more than 50% of cases they claim "informed consent," which can basically be made to mean anything they want it to mean.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Rendel - Please show us your source.



http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ICIBI-Report-on-illegal-working-17.12.2015.pdf


Sections 5.18/5.19 (pg 23):


5.18 IE have no statutory power of entry to search for immigration offenders. Officers may apply to a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) for a warrant to enter premises for specified purposes without

requiring the owner?s consent, or may gain entry with the ?informed consent? of someone in authority at the premises. IE guidance describes ?informed consent? as ?a person?s agreement to allow something to happen after the person has been informed of all the risks involved and the alternatives?


5.19 In the past, IE had made extensive use of Section 28CA of the Immigration Act 1971. This

allowed officers to enter business premises and make arrests with a Home Office Assistant Director?s

authority (an ?AD letter?) in specific circumstances without recourse to a warrant. Our 2014 report

An Inspection of the Use of the Power to Enter Business Premises Without a Search Warrant found that

there had been widespread non-compliance with the guidance and ineffective assurance processes but

also that senior managers had identified this issue and were beginning to improve performance and

compliance.


Section 5.48 (pg 30):


There were inconsistencies in operational practice in a number of areas, which pointed to deficiencies in officer training, supervision and assurance. The areas included: reconnaissance (?recces?) of target

premises; use of non-directed surveillance; obtaining lawful entry to premises; pursuit, cautioning,

questioning, and use of handcuffs. Failure to apply the law correctly and to follow IE guidance in

relation to any and all of these compromises the Home Office and the officers involved, as well as

infringing the rights of the individuals affected.


ETA Figure 12 page 24, of sample raids, 79 carried out under warrant, 3 unclear, 102 "informed consent."

Let's try to leave the Daily Mail terms in the gutter where they belong, shall we?


Undocumented migrant covers a multitude of possibilities - overstayer, failed asylum seeker, those in the country without leave for whatever reason etc. It also includes those who haven't had their immigration applications resolved yet.


Let's show others the same respect we'd expect to be shown ourselves whatever their circumstances. The immigration debate needn't be inflammatory.




Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> illegal immigrant is now an "undocumented

> migrant", IlonaM?

>

> Really?

Ilona, it's obviously a sore point, but the term was not created by the Daily Mail.


It's a real term for the very things you describe - or would you prefer everyone was legal, perhaps with deferred legality (once all paperwork is in order)?


It's a bit like being caught without drivers insurance and saying to the police that you're applying for it - it doesn't matter - you don't have it, you're uninsured and driving illegally.

Jules it's not a sore point - I've been working in the field for a long time and I've seen how this kind of language affects those who are seeking asylum or seeking to regularize their immigration status. The language used by the certain newspapers, politicians and members of the public can have a devastating effect on the health of those on the receiving end. Like Donald Trump, you might like using the term 'illegals', but it has no reference in law. The 'real term' you rely upon is used as an inflammatory term in the discussion on migration and immigration by particular groups. Those who work in the field, on all sides, chose to use more neutral language.
not everyone's the same - while there may be people who are trying to sort out their citizenshiip and their intentions are good, there are people who are purposefully not and the term illegal does apply. The latter has a devastating effect and you should not undermine because saying so hurts some peoples feelings.

It's a fine point and someone will be along in a moment bawling "snowflake generation," no doubt, but the offence caused lies in the way the term "illegal immigrant" makes the person, and not what they're doing, illegal. We don't refer to other offenders against the law as "illegal people," the characterisation of the person as the offence exists solely for immigrants. It's a way of dehumanising. As the holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel wisely said, "no human being is illegal."


Just to caution against using such catchall terms, "illegal immigrants" can include those trafficked to Britain to work in the sex trade, victims of forced marriage, those brought to Britain as spouses then divorced...words are powerful and terms do matter.

absolutely RH, the vulnerable and exploited are the result of 'lack of documentation' and those with the intention of those to avoid the proper process.


I have not thought of the term as addressing a person at all but a statement of the fact, as in illegal drivers. Not "he's an illegal driver"

and I believe that checking immigration status actually goes a way to protect the vulnerable, that have been exploited - and helping them.

It's not just about identifying people whose visa has expired. That's really a very superficial way of looking at it.

Certain organisations (such as Associated Press) which have ceased using "illegal immigrant" still refer to "illegal immigration" as that refers to the activity, not the person. It is, as I said, a matter of fine distinction. It's against the law to build an extension on the front of your house without planning permission, and officials might well talk of a need to crack down on "illegal extensions" but not "illegal householders," as it's not the householders who are illegal but their behaviour. Immigrants are the only ones I can think of who are referred to individually or en masse as illegal human beings, rather than perpetrators of an illegal action.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> and I believe that checking immigration status

> actually goes a way to protect the vulnerable,

> that have been exploited - and helping them.

> It's not just about identifying people whose visa

> has expired. That's really a very superficial way

> of looking at it.


Good job I don't look at it that way then, and I don't think I've said that I do. I have no problem with proper checks being made and I agree they can be a powerful way of stopping the abuse of unauthorized migrants. However, as per the report I linked to and quoted above, Immigration Enforcement have too often broken the law themselves in undertaking raids without due cause etc. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who might not like an immigrant business in their community (or indeed other immigrants who want to drive out rivals) who will allege to IE that said business is using unauthorised immigrants: it seems from the report that IE have adopted a gung-ho approach to such tipoffs which has carried them too often beyond the boundaries of their remit and indeed the law.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

>, there

> are people who are purposefully not and the term

> illegal does apply. The latter has a devastating

> effect and you should not undermine because saying

> so hurts some peoples feelings.


What's this "devastating effect" of illegal immigrants that have no interest in legalising their status?

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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