Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree Jenny ,I think they'll just use Flynn to distance themselves .And I guess you're right about the Republicans ,proving Trump correct about the swamp .Sigh .


I located the story about not visiting Russia ,it was re a Michael Cohen https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/michael-cohen-it-is-fake-news-meant-to-malign-mr-trump/512762/

Yes, that is exactly right. Poor Donald, death by a thousand cuts. This has 'out of control' written all over it. The various agencies he has infuriated will see to it that he is impeached I think: they have only gotten started.


Poor May, too. Was she not briefed?

I think Reince Priebus may be next for the chop (for different reasons of course).


This really creepy recent tweet from the eye-popping Kellyanne suggests she's positioning herself for the Chief of Staff job


'I serve at the pleasure of @POTUS. His message is my message. His goals are my goals. Uninformed chatter doesn't matter'.

Yes ,those names .Add to the surreal quality of it all ,like watching a film .


My brain really isn't up to all this ,but Trump was well aware before his innaugration that discussions with Russia needed investigating .How can he ( rhetorical question ) claim that it's just now that he's lost confidence in Flynn.


See this old news about it http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

And I don't want to overload this thread with humerous links ( so easy ) but this is about Trumps handshaking style .


The "Trump Pump " .http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/14/donald-trumps-handshakes-like-man-aggressive-confusing-secretly/

I think there are lots of confusing and tangled threads in the whole 'too close to Putin' story. I would say the point now is to get Congress to properly investigate the things we already know about. Any thorough investigation into the Flynn affair might well start to turn up other links.


I'll have a thorough read of the articles you've linked to a bit later intexas. Thanks for keeping a thought provoking conversation going!

I'm not sure I'm actually contributing anything Jenny ,just raising questions and hoping for reality checks .


I've not read this properly but lots about investigating the whole links with Russia thing and how any Flynn investigation would just be a part of that .


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/michael-flynn-resignation-congress-investigation/516633/?utm_source=atltw

I've copied this because it seems to me such a ridiculous response to a question about anti semitism,almost unbelievable .



Q ? ?Mr. President, since your election campaign and even after your victory, we?ve seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents across the United States. ?And I wonder what you say to those among the Jewish community in the States, and in Israel, and maybe around the world who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.

And, Mr. Prime Minister, do you agree to what the President just said about the need for Israel to restrain or to stop settlement activity in the West Bank? ?And a quick follow-up on my friend?s questions -- simple question: ?Do you back off from your vision to the end of the conflict of two-state solution as you laid out in Bar-Ilan speech, or you still support it? ?Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: ?Well, I just want to say that we are very honored by the victory that we had -- 306 Electoral College votes. ?We were not supposed to crack 220. ?You know that, right? ?There was no way to 221, but then they said there?s no way to 270. ?And there?s tremendous enthusiasm out there. ?

I will say that we are going to have peace in this country. ?We are going to stop crime in this country. ?We are going to do everything within our power to stop long-simmering racism and every other thing that?s going on, because lot of bad things have been taking place over a long period of time. ?

I think one of the reasons I won the election is we have a very, very divided nation. ?Very divided. ?And, hopefully, I?ll be able to do something about that. ?And, you know, it was something that was very important to me.

As far as people -- Jewish people -- so many friends, a daughter who happens to be here right now, a son-in-law, and three beautiful grandchildren. ?I think that you?re going to see a lot different United States of America over the next three, four, or eight years. ?I think a lot of good things are happening, and you?re going to see a lot of love. ?You?re going to see a lot of love. ?Okay? ?Thank you

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.771992

Well, someone is doing the leaking and it's not Snowden.


The deep-state exists and it is terrifying. Way beyond the 'military-industrial complex' now. It may end up being far more of concern than Trump (who, we may come to think, is just a smoke-screen: for when he is impeached or resigns an illusion of 'sanity' will prevail, the perfect mask of power). Obama has some responsibility here.

Hi intexasatthemoment. I think that's just his standard response to most questions - no matter what the subject matter. I won. I'm great. Everything used to be bad. Now everything will be great.


There seems to be a strong push among American activists to get Congressional Republicans to step up to do some real oversight ....but as discussed previously most are happy with the status quo. It'll need a powerful movement indeed to change their minds.

Hi jaywalker. Thanks for the lrb link - I'll have a read when I get a chance later.


I disagree with your concerns about the 'secret state' though. The 'intelligence community' isn't perfect and requires oversight and regulation - but given the way the world functions it is needed.


I should think both the FBI and CIA are deeply concerned about Trump's own lax approach to security - as demonstrated by his antics at Mar-a-Lago at the weekend. The way he does business makes him a considerable risk to national security.

I agree with you Jaywalker that leaks from the security services / permanent state, aimed at undermining an elected official are pretty alarming. Whilst I am far from a fan of Trump (to put it very mildly), these leaks are pretty not acceptable. If they were aimed at anyone other then Trump (say, Obama for example), there would be a lot more people speaking out against them IMO. For the security services to be releasing this stuff points to some real problems.

Hi intexas. I had a read of your Kos articles. They're interesting. But I would see them as adding to the general somewhat confused picture of what Russia/Putin/White House links might exist - and which of those might be of concern. I think that's why we need a proper Congressional inquiry. It seems that that looks more possible as the days go on - as this Boston Globe article suggests.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/02/15/something-rotten-white-house/cQe5866sEqGmR55RzOGzPI/story.html?event=event25?event=event25


And please see the same article jaywalker and rahrahrah for why I think the 'leaks' aren't the story. The intelligence community monitor ambassadors calls (that's why they knew Flynn had spoken to the Russian ambassador). They told the justice department what they'd heard (not a worry as far as I'm concerned). This then led the acting attorney general to raise concerns with the White House that Flynn, having broken the law, could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians. Not a sequence of events that I regard as sinister.

Trump tweet

"The real scandal here is that classified information is being given out by "intelligence" like candy.

Very un-American."


In fact the below article seems to say it is very american - from Deep Throat on.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-flynn-leaks-20170215-story.html

I thought it's length rather detracted from some of the points it was making ( but I have a small brain ) .I agree completely that the Democrats are no opposition . McCain seems to be the only person standing up to Trump .And these bits chimed with me .


"If Obama often seemed an image of deliberation without appetite, Trump has always been the reverse. For him, there is no time to linger: from the first thought to the first motion is a matter of seconds; the last aversion or appetite triggers the jump to the deed. And if along the way he speaks false words? Well, words are of limited consequence. What people want is a spectacle; they will attend to what you do, not what you say; and to the extent that words themselves are a spectacle, they add to the show. The great thing about words, Trump believes, is that they are disposable. " - but the people might just get catch on if it turns out there are more words than action. A lot of love is going to put a stop to bad people who comit anti semetic acts ? Crime is going to be stopped ? Method seems to be missing ?


"The voters have come to understand that the big banks, along with investment companies like Goldman Sachs and transnational corporations, are sovereignties as powerful as states and in some cases more powerful. By vesting a billionaire with extraordinary power, therefore, the voters are going straight to the relevant authority and cutting out the middle man ? the politician."


"Trump likes the relationship of money to power in Russia ? and specifically of financial power to government authority ? more than he admires anything special about Putin, whom he has never met and about whom he knows little. "


And I loved the rhetoric of his last sentence

"The entertainment of the autumn, when a would-be Caesar held us fast in our seats by mixing forbidden truths with his lies, has already glutted the heartiest appetite, but the exits are closed and we are still in the first scene of the first act."


I liked Wollfe in the Guardian yesterday https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/14/mike-flynn-resignation-trumps-nightmare-begun-mar-a-lago ,but that's because I'm hoping Trump will go even though I fear Pence .

Though Bromwich in your link Jay gives me hope when pointing out that Trump will be in breach of the constitution regarding emoluments if his hotel is used by foreign dignatories .

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...