Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apologies for a link the the Daily Express. I am sure that there is a separate story here.


1000s of footy fans marched this weekend against extremism.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863524/Football-fans-protest-London-Park-Lane-terror-attack-Manchester-extremism-terrorist-racism


I'd be interested what people think. I've got my own views.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/169855-football-lads-alliance/
Share on other sites

It's the EDL by another name. They think a lot of themselves, and promote the FLA as being a fairly generic anti-extremist outfit. It's not.


I suspect (I could be wrong) the reason they've not had as much press as they'd like is that most of the media know it's basically an attempt by the EDL to gain support covertly using football fan networks to spread an apparent message of peace and love that hides a deeper, darker agenda.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> I get the distinct impression that the far left

> will go all out to get them banned as there seem

> to be links to people from the far right...Diane

> Abbott has put her 4 penn'orth in as well. Then

> all the other virtue signallers will come out of

> the woodwork...


Fuck off.


It's nothing to do with virtue signalling; this is a direct attempt by the EDL to spread their bigotry by subterfuge. It's a classic example of "if you're not with us you're against us", and they need to be seen for what they are, dangerous throwbacks looking to capitalise on fear.


The FLA is not to be taken lightly, they have definate far right links, and just because you hate the far left doesn't mean it's ok to excuse these people. Grow up.

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> I suspect (I could be wrong) the reason they've

> not had as much press as they'd like is that most

> of the media know it's basically an attempt by the

> EDL to gain support covertly using football fan

> networks to spread an apparent message of peace

> and love that hides a deeper, darker agenda.


First I've heard of them.


But surely recruiting lots of 'moderates' is counter-productive to an extreme movement?

That's the point. The EDL knows it's been widely discredited, and the FLA is its way back in.


It's very hard to argue with their core message, allowing them to paint themselves as reasonable. All that goes out the window when you remember this is the EDL by another name.


Thin end of the wedge, this is a new tactic by them. They have no intention of stopping there.

Tired of this regurgitation of fascism as football, so what JoeLeg said.


I have long since come to terms with the fact that the club I support - West Ham - has an attraction for the far right racist scum that infest the East but only an idiot would not see through this attempt to rebrand their nasty agenda.

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> uncleglen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I get the distinct impression that the far left

> > will go all out to get them banned as there

> seem

> > to be links to people from the far

> right...Diane

> > Abbott has put her 4 penn'orth in as well. Then

> > all the other virtue signallers will come out

> of

> > the woodwork...

>

> @#$%& off.

>

> It's nothing to do with virtue signalling; this is

> a direct attempt by the EDL to spread their

> bigotry by subterfuge. It's a classic example of

> "if you're not with us you're against us", and

> they need to be seen for what they are, dangerous

> throwbacks looking to capitalise on fear.

>

> The FLA is not to be taken lightly, they have

> definate far right links, and just because you

> hate the far left doesn't mean it's ok to excuse

> these people. Grow up.


He won't you know. I daresay to unclehate the demonstrators who stopped the Blackshirts in Cable Street were just virtue signalling as well.

I have as much distaste of groups of football fans as anyone, but I still cannot see any definitely links as yet with the far right. Yes, there were come EDLers at the march, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean the group itself is aligned. We know that there are anti-Semitic types 'linked' with Labour, but we shouldn't write off the whole Labour party because it.


I'm not giving the FLA a clean bill of health at all, but I'd rather have some evidence before I write something off.

Maybe the FLA organisers, and the majority of the marchers, aren't far-right, but we've been here before.

The EDL started of saying they weren't far-right. I can remember seeing a docu on them just after they formed, a small group of masked 'lads' from Luton, including a couple of black guys, burning a Nazi flag on camera as a way of 'proving' that they weren't far-right. We all know what the EDL subsequently morphed in to.

There's been a previous attempt to 'unite' football hooligans...Casuals United. They were closely affiliated to the EDL. Disbanded in 2014, I wouldn't be surprised if it's former members have now attached themselves to the FLA. If the FLA organisers are serious about being non-political/far-right, then they need to get their lardy arses in gear before the same thing happens again...

Loz Wrote:

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

> I have as much distaste of groups of football fans

> as anyone, but I still cannot see any definitely

> links as yet with the far right. Yes, there were

> come EDLers at the march, but that doesn't

> (necessarily) mean the group itself is aligned. We

> know that there are anti-Semitic types 'linked'

> with Labour, but we shouldn't write off the whole

> Labour party because it.

>

> I'm not giving the FLA a clean bill of health at

> all, but I'd rather have some evidence before I

> write something off.


Don't worry Loz- evidence will be found or manufactured....

I KNOW the far left- and if you are a woman- watch out

uncleglen Wrote:

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


> Don't worry Loz- evidence will be found or manufactured....

> I KNOW the far left- and if you are a woman- watch out


The further from the centre you get - left or right - the less I trust what they say. I expect in this case, there will be some sane, centrist voices that will get to the bottom of this.


Like others here, I have my doubts about this group, but I am willing to wait to see what comes up. The fact that the convener has a hooliganism conviction is not a good start, but neither is it the smoking gun (for the want of a better phrase).

My view - it is na?ve to even consider that this could be an innocent anti-terror march.


We are pretty much ALL against terrorism and religious extremism. It is the default view for the majority. A march is not needed, unless you have some kind of subtext. The far right ALWAYS try to phrase their beliefs to fit the mainstream dialogue... and they always deny they're racists. Seen it all before.


If they really were a "great bunch of lads" with a small handful of racists in attendance, then they would have sent the racists packing. They didn't. So they're at the very least complicit.


So... f*ck off and take your knuckle-dragging, football hooligan, lager swilling lad culture bollox with you.

Mr Meighan also drew loud applause in his call for foreign terror suspects to be deported during any ongoing police investigations.


He said: "We want all terrorist suspects who are not British citizens, who pose a threat to society, to be permanently removed from this country.


"Why should they be allowed to do what they do? So what, they're suspects - get them out of here."


Obviously never heard of innocent until proven guilty , and why only single out terrorist suspects who aren't British citizens, what does he suggest we do with terrorist suspects that are British Citizens? I think I can guess.

Parkdrive Wrote:

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



> "Why should they be allowed to do what they do? So what, they're suspects - get them out of here."

>

> Obviously never heard of innocent until proven guilty , and why only single out terrorist

> suspects who aren't British citizens, what does he suggest we do with terrorist suspects that are

> British Citizens? I think I can guess.


I suspect because it is rather difficult to deport a British citizen. Whether or not they know that most of the terrorists who have attacked people in the name of ISIS in the UK have been British citizens is probably another matter altogether.


But, as I've tried to say, innocent until proven guilty has to apply to the FLA as well.

Tommy Robinson speaking at Columbia University - there's definitely an attempt to 'mainstream' the right.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/former-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-to-give-talk-at-prestigious-us-university-a3654316.html


I thought once you're refused entry to the states you can't go back.

UG, I'm not defending the far-left - no one here is defending the far left - because they're a pretty despicable bunch of fools (turns out the forums software won't let me say what I really think of them!). But I'm guessing you've gone off your meds again because that's got nothing to do with the FLA, despite your weird attempts to turn it into another rant about people you don't like.


Loz, if what I believe about them somehow doesn't turn out to be true I'll be amazed. But I'd be very happy to be proved wrong. So far however the FLA is doing an excellent job of looking like everything that was wrong about supporters in the late 1980's; they grabbed onto anti-IRA sentiment back then, while being violent thugs. Yes, maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Interesting that James McClean got the only goal tonight as Ireland got into the World Cup play offs. He that refused to wear the poppy and got grief from home fans and opposition. Pat Nevin summed it up nicely that this was his choice, was informed, and this is his right.


Wonder how many FLA sing "no surrender to the IRA".


Not surprisingly I have already had separate debates on the subject of the thread. There is probably a old school working class reclaim our national sport, vs educated/middle class newbies angle to. Bit like Brexit.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Interesting that James McClean got the only goal

> tonight as Ireland got into the World Cup play

> offs. He that refused to wear the poppy and got

> grief from home fans and opposition. Pat Nevin

> summed it up nicely that this was his choice, was

> informed, and this is his right.

>

> Wonder how many FLA sing "no surrender to the

> IRA".

>

> Not surprisingly I have already had separate

> debates on the subject of the thread. There is

> probably a old school working class reclaim our

> national sport, vs educated/middle class newbies

> angle to. Bit like Brexit.


I got twitter banned for 30 minutes last night for my colourful language after that goal :)


I remember deciding to wind up the guy below as a 16 year old visiting Cardiff (he was about the same age) - my friends dragged me to a changing room and held me down to stop me. No 1 hooligan of the time apparently (and of course I didn't know) - He wasn't at the FLA march from what I can tell.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2002/hooligans/gallery/annis_abraham.stm


Edit: Like taking the knee - wearing a poppy is an individual decision - I can't understand the big thing that is made of it.

The question which surely should be asked is what's the point of the march? Protesting against terrorists, well they're sure to listen. It's not as if the government isn't taking steps to try to prevent terrorism. So at best it's a sort of pointless virtue signalling (how nice to be able to level that accusation at the right for once!), "Oh, we really care about terrorist attacks and want them to stop" - nobody else does, of course - and at worst it's a cover for anti-immigrant sentiment (which is what one suspects). At best, misguided, at worst, sinister.

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...