Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? Wrote:

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


> You know what the fellow said ? in Italy, for

> thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare,

> terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced

> Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the

> Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly

> love, they had five hundred years of democracy and

> peace ? and what did that produce? The cuckoo

> clock.


And who would you rather trust with your pension Quids?

???? Wrote:

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

> HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Spot on DJKQ. My work brings me into contact

> with

> > the rich - almost every one of the ones I've

> known

> > was in the right place at the right time.

> > Shakespeare summed it up beautifully in Julius

> > Caesar:

> >

> > "There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which

> > taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

> Omitted,

> > all the voyage of their life is bound in

> shallows

> > and in miseries."

> >

>

>

> Cock. I've met and worked for plenty of people who

> have made some serious money on their own back,

> including a couple in the top 20 Times list...and

> they all take risks and many have turned their

> backs on relatively prosperous conventional

> careers (wage slavery as they see it)or

> no=prospect dead end jobs. 99% of people just

> haven't got those balls.


There are of course also plenty in the top 10, 50, 100 200 that, say, were born wealthy and happened to marry the sister of a very rich person who have them top jobs on corporate boards, so double whammy (very nice chap despite wealth), or, say, happened to be the grand-daughter of the inventor of a packaging product (likewise).

... and the ones who go to the school that daddy says, and do the uni degree that daddy says, and do everything that daddy says, because they're terrified of not getting all of daddy's money... while absolutely hating daddy and his schoolgirl-style girlfriend. Not much risk-taking there.

Just to go back a few pages (sorry haven't kept up with the debate)....


This is the benefit of having a successful financial services industry in the uk.


Ask those with poor performing pensions just what a successful financial services industry has done for them...check out last weeks Panorama for the details of the scam going on there...and oh then there's the mis-selling of PPI and insurance. In fact one industry insider told me that charges and mis-sold PPI is where the banks made most of their money.


This so called finacial services inducstry has serviced those at the top of it most and left the rest of us bankrupt.....there can be no argument with that.....and were banking not given the special treatment it were they'd be non-existent now...relegated to the dustbin of bankrupt companies.


That's what people, are angry about (especially the poor who don't have loans and mortagaes in the first place), and rightly so.

Emerson Crane Wrote:

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

> *Bob* Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But of course they didn't get around to doing

> it

> > before they had children or mortgages either.

>

>

> Nonetheless a sweeping and lazy generalisation,

> which seems to hold up those that have made the

> gamble as superior beings worthy of puting up on a

> pedestal, and something we should all aspire to.



And of course most people that do set out on the road of entrpreneur fail. If we all followed that road who would drive the buses, or nurse the sick, or teach our kids? Again we have a problem im his country where only wealth is deemed to have worth or be any kind of measure of success.

Mad rant? I'm sick and tired of people exonerating some of the behaviour of banks (MP in his earlier posts described exactly how banks had moved goalposts (after lobbying for deregulation) to maximise their profits with no regard for the stresses and risk they put on the economy). They need regulating...end of.


And no-one is against wealth.....to argue for a fairer society isn't anti-wealth either. But there is a problem with any society where the cost of living is kept so high (housing being one example) that too many people struggle to afford it.



Gross misrepresentation. Huguenot was at the same game. Wishing individuals well on their way to a Ferrari is well and good. If he fails he fails and apart from him and his noone needs to give a shit. I hope he suceeds an I wish him well.


When institutions are based on the same premise and dwarf many whole nations then it's madness to apply the same criteria, even if that institution is made up of many individuals

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

>... there is a problem with any society where the cost of

> living is kept so high (housing being one example)

> that too many people struggle to afford it.


You have identified the very essence of capitalism: an essential commodity like residential property tends to lie beyond the means of everyone except those willing and able to spend a lifetime in debt-bondage to acquire it.


Capitalism demands the existence of substantial inequalities between the poor masses and a rich minority otherwise it falls apart. It was an ill-conceived attempt to put an affordable roof over everybody's head that brought the system to the verge of collapse in 2008 - don't forget.


Carl Marx predicted its self-destruction years ago - he may still get the last laugh.

"I hope he suceeds an I wish him well."


When accent invades grammar. All you need now is *wags finger in air*. I heard you saying it ;-)


Besides, I wasn't 'at the same game'. Other people have merely recognised an underlying truism.... that 'fair society' is often a disingenuous dinner party rationalisation of 'punish the rich'. The very fact that 'bankers' have been mentioned so much in this debate demonstrates that it's really nothing to do with the 'poor' at all. It's about envy.


My only argument is that this is an essentially pointless and destructive ambition. There is no opportunity for fair society lobbyists to pursue their ambitions until they focuses their energies on the people they want to help, instead of the people they want to hate.

and my argument was that seriously wealthy people WHO HAVE DONE it themselves aren't on the whole just lucky - that's all. No - ohh they're great, they're my heros; they should be what we all aspire to. Fairly predictably - this has been ment with


1) "Lots of people inherit their wealth" - er, no sh1t sherlock

2) "God what a narrow aspiration...who'd drive the busses. you shallow person"Was never put forward as an aspiration for all just a fact.

3) "bankers are all w*nkers", may or not be true and gawd knows we've raked over it a million times, but not what I was talking about


I'd reiterate - self-made millionairres may not all or always be pleasant, moral or anything to aspire to bUT they've by and large had the balls, drive, willingness to take risks and yes a bit of luck to get there. Most peole don't even try- and that's not a problem, they don't have to, many don't want to BUT they can't just dismiss those that do and make it as 'being lucky'.

that 'fair society' is often a disingenuous dinner party rationalisation of 'punish the rich'. The very fact that 'bankers' have been mentioned so much in this debate demonstrates that it's really nothing to do with the 'poor' at all. It's about envy.


That's an unfair dismissal of the debate. The only reason why banks are getting so much criticism is because of the part their practises have played in the recent catastrophe. And it's a pretty global view on just what part they played (not some dinner party rationalisation) by many economic experts some of whom were ringing alarm bells long before the crisis. The banking community were designing products with ridiculous risk attached and seeing the profit and bonuses before the risk they were putting their own companies at. No one can argue with that.


Had there been another underlying reason for the crisis then the criticism would be different and lobbied at different organisations.


It's nothing to do with envy at all.


We don't want it to happen again.....we want stable banks with practises that both serve the economy (in wealth creation) but at the same time don't lead us down the same road we've just gone. It's not a difficult thing to solve. They did it after the Wall Street crash for example.


With regards to a fair society, I and others are arguing for fairness of opportunity, especially for young people. That means closing the gap between state and public school education for a start. Some of you mention entrpreneurs...well if you want to set up a business that requires money, and if you are from a poorer background with no assets you are not going to get that investment unless you have some great unique idea and then only at a high price. The dice is always loaded so that you will get less return for the work you put in if you try, and you'll only get to fail once (because of our stupid laws on banckruptcy in this country that lock people out for seven years).


This discussion is not about making everyone millionaires anyway (that could never happnen). Most people just want to be able to make ends meet and provide for their family. That's not too much to ask. But HAL is absolutely right in how the current system is designed to enslave everyone in masses of lifelong debt. Capatialism has other forms. It's doesn't have to be so debt ridden.


I don't have all the solutions for what we do to level the paying field but there has to be some recognition that the playing field isn't level and that there are some things that can be done for those that truly would benefit and use the opportunities given.


But to pretend there are no other options for a healthier, more stable and fair economy, is just nonsense.

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

    • 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 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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