Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This may be a little bit of intellectual snobbery, but I liken the Mail/Sun/Mirror, etc outpourings to the stuff you get from your stereotypical cabbie - not stuff you want to hear, but you sort of shrug, sigh and tune out. Arguing would be like 'teaching a pig to sing'.


But the Guardian I see as being like David Starkey - you look and think, "all that education and that is what you come out with?" You just kind of expect better.


(Yes, I know they are not politically at all similar, but that's not the analogy.)

I had an interesting cabbie experience in Cornwall this weekend.


I asked if anyone in cornwall really thought of it as a separate country. He told me that he doesn't do politics, ok fair enough...but continued that they don't like foreigners down here.


Apparently the English are just about alright...you know...the white ones....

It culminated in some nonsense that involved solving problems with nuclear weapons......


awwwwkwarddd......


Quickly steered to pronunciation of place names, safer territory barring some anti american stuff (they try too hard and get everything wrong apparently)

Thanks to Loz and El Pibe for the pics. Absolutely bang on, I had just nicked the strapline from the bottom of the article posted by SJ. Didn't realise the Daily Mash did a spoof t-shirt of it in same vein as their DM one.


Parkdrive - the Mail and the Sun are despicable but this thread is about the Guardian hence my comment. Also, it wasn't genuine 'venom' 'scorn' or 'derision' on my part although I can see why you'd think that if you hadn't fully read to the bottom of the article that sparked the re-emergence of this thread.


Otta - they're definitely wrong about the spelling of bellend! :)

numbers Wrote:

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

> Thanks to Loz and El Pibe for the pics. Absolutely

> bang on, I had just nicked the strapline from the

> bottom of the article posted by SJ. Didn't

> realise the Daily Mash did a spoof t-shirt of it

> in same vein as their DM one.

>

> Parkdrive - the Mail and the Sun are despicable

> but this thread is about the Guardian hence my

> comment. Also, it wasn't genuine 'venom' 'scorn'

> or 'derision' on my part although I can see why

> you'd think that if you hadn't fully read to the

> bottom of the article that sparked the

> re-emergence of this thread.

>

I did read the article, and while I agree with many of the comments I still don't get the need for a thread dedicated to this subject. In the interests of balance and fair play a similar thread should be dedicated to rubbishing the Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Times. After all is said and done EDFers pride themselves on fair play and balanced argument don't they?

Yeah but if you had a thread for the Mail/Sun it would get tiresome to have to hyperlink to every story outlining why this one is particularly inaccurate or offensive.


At least in the Grauniad it's relatively rare (or just weekly in Polly Toynbee's case).

numbers Wrote:

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

> Park drive, you're an EDF-er. If you feel so

> strongly, why not start a thread about it.


Clearly I'm not that arsed. But just wanted to see what sort of reaction I'd get to a request for balance and fair play. And now I know.



> That's like me going on the X factor thread &

> complaining that no-one has set up a thread to

> bash Strictly come dancing.



Really? No it isn't.

weirdly combining a couple of different threads and strands, here's a stuart heritage CIF piece on the cost of living where he writes the word "ballache" which made me chuckle after bellendgate because i pronounced it "bal?sh" in my head and wondered what the hell one of them was for a moment....


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/house-prices-capital-overpriced-london?CMP=fb_gu

david_carnell Wrote:

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


> Yeah but if you had a thread for the Mail/Sun it would get tiresome to have to hyperlink to every

> story outlining why this one is particularly inaccurate or offensive.

>

> At least in the Grauniad it's relatively rare (or just weekly in Polly Toynbee's case).


Polly's not so bad. The worst charge you can level at her is being a bit of a rehasher of Labour PR releases.


But there is Jessica Valenti, who seems to go out of her way to be wildly inaccurate and wildly offensive, and sadly gets published every couple of days. She could move to the Mail tomorrow, though even they might think she's a bit too offensive.

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> George Monbiot has been really sh!t of late, I used to quite like him.


I didn't always agree with his views (in fact, more not than often), but I liked reading his stuff as he does set out his arguments well and back them with credible stats and sources. But, agreed, he seems to have jumped the shark of late.

Today's is a typical post-shark article.

I'd actually made a vaguely similar point, but I like to think i did it rather than better. He manages to fail at being analytical, thoughtful, satirical or even absurd; the fact that i'm not sure which he was aiming for propbably says it all.


He should probably stick to economics.

Parkdrive Wrote:

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

> numbers Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Park drive, you're an EDF-er. If you feel so

> > strongly, why not start a thread about it.

>

> Clearly I'm not that arsed. But just wanted to see

> what sort of reaction I'd get to a request for

> balance and fair play. And now I know.


So let me be clear, YOU can't be arsed to start a thread about it but you expect ME to take a stand for 'balance and fair play' by starting a new thread? Are you serious? Or do you hold every other registered user that hasn't started a thread into account too?


> > That's like me going on the X factor thread &

> > complaining that no-one has set up a thread to

> > bash Strictly come dancing.

>

>

> Really? No it isn't.


Same principle. I can't be arsed explaining it.

Opinion pieces are always going to enrage some people because they're driven by the newspaper's political agenda (and journos building their own profile), when in reality most of us hold more conflicting opinions than that allows for. The culture section's great, though, and the Saturday edition is still enough to see you through a weekend.

numbers Wrote:

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

> Parkdrive Wrote:

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

> -----

> > numbers Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Park drive, you're an EDF-er. If you feel so

> > > strongly, why not start a thread about it.

> >

> > Clearly I'm not that arsed. But just wanted to

> see

> > what sort of reaction I'd get to a request for

> > balance and fair play. And now I know.

>

> So let me be clear, YOU can't be arsed to start a

> thread about it but you expect ME to take a stand

> for 'balance and fair play' by starting a new

> thread? Are you serious? Or do you hold every

> other registered user that hasn't started a thread

> into account too?

>

> > > That's like me going on the X factor thread &

> > > complaining that no-one has set up a thread

> to

> > > bash Strictly come dancing.

> >

> >

> > Really? No it isn't.

>

> Same principle. I can't be arsed explaining it.



No it isn't

I'm a fan but there are some columnists I just have to skip past for my own mental health:


Lucy Mangan

Barbara Ellen

Michele Hanson


But I love:


Barnay Ronay (absurdist look at sport)

Seamus Milne

Martin Kelner

Laura Barton


But then equally there are some great columnists at other papers. I'm always interested in what Peter Oborne has to say and Michael Deacon is by far and away the best political sketch writer.

even a stopped clock etc.


excellent article on the wrongs of muscular secularism.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular


I love Karen Armstrong, she has great instincts and empathy for religious history, even if she does play a bit fast and loose with the, you know, history part of it to fit her narrative sometimes.


But this is a very good, brief sweeping overview of how the west has transformed and that in many respects the evils we see and decry in the islamic world really IS a defence against a long tradition of very deadly cultural imperialism by the west.


Of course that's not to say ISIS are a nice bunch or we should let them get on with it if its in our power to protect the victims of violence.


But it's worth remembering that in getting to where we are 10s of millions of Europeans died and many tens of millions round the world followed in the wake of our secular rebirth. Society is a lumbering beast and when it changes death usually follows in its wake.

but EP - there are huge, huge swathes of the world where secularism and the values of the enlightment are being pushed back by religous dogma in a way that wasn't the case as recently as the 70s and 80s. It's a cliche but the PLO of the 1970s slept witch each over, smoked fags, wore flares and mini-dresses and discussed marxism - is Hamas like that? Turkey is increasing turning away from the liberal values of wotsisname (the post war founder of modern turkey, cant be arsed to googfe); places like Cairo as recently as 20 years ago had reasonable numbers of bars/nightlife and woman, including locals, could wear what they wanted, no longer. There is a revival in at least some head covering among daughters whose mum's didn't cover up at all. Even an established democracy like indonesia is showing some worrying signs of rolling back liberalism. And for a non-muslim bias - a significant factor in the failure of the peace process in plaestine/israel is the settlers - Ultra-Orthodox jews, where were they during the Kibbutz phrase (Kibbitsism with its secular socialism is almost non-existent now).

Parkdrive Wrote:

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


> numbers Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Parkdrive Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > numbers Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Park drive, you're an EDF-er. If you feel

> so

> > > > strongly, why not start a thread about it.

> > >

> > > Clearly I'm not that arsed. But just wanted

> to

> > see

> > > what sort of reaction I'd get to a request

> for

> > > balance and fair play. And now I know.

> >

> > So let me be clear, YOU can't be arsed to start

> a

> > thread about it but you expect ME to take a

> stand

> > for 'balance and fair play' by starting a new

> > thread? Are you serious? Or do you hold every

> > other registered user that hasn't started a

> thread

> > into account too?

> >

> > > > That's like me going on the X factor thread

> &

> > > > complaining that no-one has set up a thread

> > to

> > > > bash Strictly come dancing.

> > >

> > >

> > > Really? No it isn't.

> >

> > Same principle. I can't be arsed explaining it.

>

>

> No it isn't


In your opinion. Not mine.

But that's rather the point quids. That secularism was whacked all of a sudden on top of various societies, some of which weren't *ever* buying it, except among well to do elites, and this is the fallout.


The PLO were intellectual communist revolutionaries, not a popular movement.

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...