Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> For what it's worth, Toffee, I don't think you

> deserved the rather rabid response you got. I

> don't know you or whether you have an 'agenda' but

> the response was out of proportion to what you

> said.



Rabid? Really? Toffee was pushing an agenda (fully backed up by his previous highly aggressive - including physically threatening - posts excoriating "liberal luvvies") that black on white racism is as prevalent as white on black and that it's covered up. If disagreeing - and finding it both pathetic and offensive - with that makes me rabid, then I'm rabid and proud of it. If you want properly rabid, you should see the utterly pathetic and offensive PM I've just had from Toffee accusing me of having his comments removed by reporting him to Admin. For the record, I didn't.


Oh and see his lame starting a whole thread just to attack me. Who's rabid?

RendelHarris - have you ever been on the receiving end of racial abuse? It's pretty nasty. Your comment to Toffee was totally unwarranted, and trust me, as someone who has to put up with it every day I find it really offensive. It gets me down so much, that I'm thinking of moving out of London despite living in SE London all my life.

Take Note Wrote:

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

> RendelHarris - have you ever been on the receiving

> end of racial abuse? It's pretty nasty. Your

> comment to Toffee was totally unwarranted, and

> trust me, as someone who has to put up with it

> every day I find it really offensive. It gets me

> down so much, that I'm thinking of moving out of

> London despite living in SE London all my life.


Sorry, let me get this clear before I respond further: you are, I presume, white, and you're claiming you're abused by people of colour every single day? Have I misunderstood?

I have to agree that I thought Toffee was being picked on by Rendel. It seemed to stem from Rendel not liking what Toffee has to say on a thread and then carrying it through other threads that they both were active on. I?ve read Toffee posts and I was not offended by anything said. It?s a forum, people have different views.
I can only say that I've lived in South London all my life, bar college etc, and this part of it for the past twenty years plus, and I've suffered racial abuse from people of another colour a grand total of three times.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

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

> I have to agree that I thought Toffee was being

> picked on by Rendel. It seemed to stem from Rendel

> not liking what Toffee has to say on a thread and

> then carrying it through other threads that they

> both were active on. I?ve read Toffee posts and I

> was not offended by anything said. It?s a forum,

> people have different views.


And my different view was that I found the agenda I feel he was pushing offensive. If you don't, fine. As you say, people have different views. At least I don't start fresh threads for the sole aim of venting personal hatred...

Do you know what mental illness actually is? I find it really disappointing that, despite all the raising of awareness and destigmatising in recent years, some people still have that kneejerk reaction. Why not call it what it is: an assault, and one with a racist tone to it.

Asset Wrote:

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

> Horrible scenario, clearly some young, unhappy

> people with no moral compass. Hope they get their

> comeuppance and the OP isn't too disturbed.

>

> For the record I think Rendel is right to call out

> Toffee's comment.


I had preconceived ideas about the original post when I saw the headline. Didn't dream it would be the other way round!

It's not quite the same as what you have experienced but me and my partner were walking by the shop in underhill road I waited outside with the pushchair and our son as the shop is small and my partner went in and two males walked over and pulled out a knife and told me I was lucky I was with a baby and shouted white trash.

There is a school of thought that believes that racism can only come from 'the majority' (by which is always meant the white majority) directed to a minority - and thus that it is impossible for anyone of colour to be racist. Hence the surprise/ disbelief of some on hearing of a racist encounter directed at a white person, for being white. In their view, (for some of them at least) an apparent racist expression directed at a white person is thus a legitimate expression of 'hit back' from an oppressed minority.


I believe that any expression of hatred against an individual - (just) for belonging to any group membership of which they had no choice in - is frightening and reprehensible, whatever you want to call it. And if someone is being judged for belonging to a racial group, then that is racism, surely?


I am more relaxed about judging people for who they are than what they are, and you can only judge someone for who they are by knowing them in the first place, evidently not the case here.


My sympathies to the OP and others who have suffered similarly.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> There is a school of thought that believes that

> racism can only come from 'the majority' (by which

> is always meant the white majority) directed to a

> minority - and thus that it is impossible for

> anyone of colour to be racist. Hence the surprise/

> disbelief of some on hearing of a racist encounter

> directed at a white person, for being white. In

> their view, (for some of them at least) an

> apparent racist expression directed at a white

> person is thus a legitimate expression of 'hit

> back' from an oppressed minority.

>

> I believe that any expression of hatred against an

> individual - (just) for belonging to any group

> membership of which they had no choice in - is

> frightening and reprehensible, whatever you want

> to call it. And if someone is being judged for

> belonging to a racial group, then that is racism,

> surely?

>

> I am more relaxed about judging people for who

> they are than what they are, and you can only

> judge someone for who they are by knowing them in

> the first place, evidently not the case here.

>

> My sympathies to the OP and others who have

> suffered similarly.



Agreed. I think that much of the progressive left would find that many of the people they likely think dont share their values, actually do share many of their social values at their core (i.e. anti-racism, sexism etc etc), but get 'bullied' into silence, which breeds resentment.


For example, one might be happy to support the view that it is minorities who suffer more at the hands of prejudice, but if one cant express a view that (on occasion) they have also suffered in some way (even though they are a man/white/rich/straight) without being met with incredulity about how they could possibly ever understand suffering because they are a man/white/rich/straight.....then doesn't that breed resentment? and lead to disinterest in people being willing to listen to stories about the suffering of others, because no one listened to theirs?


Overall this insistence in ou society on categorising everyone into a 'bucket' drives me mad.

TheCat Wrote:

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


> For example, one might be happy to support the

> view that it is minorities who suffer more at the

> hands of prejudice, but if one cant express a view

> that (on occasion) they have also suffered in some

> way (even though they are a

> man/white/rich/straight) without being met with

> incredulity about how they could possibly ever

> understand suffering because they are a

> man/white/rich/straight.....then doesn't that

> breed resentment? and lead to disinterest in

> people being willing to listen to stories about

> the suffering of others, because no one listened

> to theirs?


I entirely agree, I think problems arise when people start pushing the idea of an equivalence, e.g. men suffer just as much oppression from women as vice versa, racism is just as bad for white people etc. That negates the reality of all experiences and is often used as an excuse to continue bad behaviour: "they" are just as bad as "us", "we" suffer just as much as "them", so you can't blame "us" for carrying on.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> TheCat Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > For example, one might be happy to support the

> > view that it is minorities who suffer more at

> the

> > hands of prejudice, but if one cant express a

> view

> > that (on occasion) they have also suffered in

> some

> > way (even though they are a

> > man/white/rich/straight) without being met with

> > incredulity about how they could possibly ever

> > understand suffering because they are a

> > man/white/rich/straight.....then doesn't that

> > breed resentment? and lead to disinterest in

> > people being willing to listen to stories about

> > the suffering of others, because no one

> listened

> > to theirs?

>

> I entirely agree, I think problems arise when

> people start pushing the idea of an equivalence,

> e.g. men suffer just as much oppression from women

> as vice versa, racism is just as bad for white

> people etc. That negates the reality of all

> experiences and is often used as an excuse to

> continue bad behaviour: "they" are just as bad as

> "us", "we" suffer just as much as "them", so you

> can't blame "us" for carrying on.



As with all these sorts of issues these days, the internet shoulders much of the blame, as the lack of nuance in debate creates division where there probably needn't be. I dont think most reasonable 'non-PC brigade' people would deny that minorities suffer 'more' rascism, and women suffer 'more' sexism. They probably just want recognition and acknowledgement on those occasions when the opposite is true...instead of being told that someone else has it worse...and therefore 'invalidating their lived experience' (to coin a progressive left phrase!).

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> TheCat Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > For example, one might be happy to support the

> > view that it is minorities who suffer more at

> the

> > hands of prejudice, but if one cant express a

> view

> > that (on occasion) they have also suffered in

> some

> > way (even though they are a

> > man/white/rich/straight) without being met with

> > incredulity about how they could possibly ever

> > understand suffering because they are a

> > man/white/rich/straight.....then doesn't that

> > breed resentment? and lead to disinterest in

> > people being willing to listen to stories about

> > the suffering of others, because no one

> listened

> > to theirs?

>

> I entirely agree, I think problems arise when

> people start pushing the idea of an equivalence,

> e.g. men suffer just as much oppression from women

> as vice versa, racism is just as bad for white

> people etc. That negates the reality of all

> experiences and is often used as an excuse to

> continue bad behaviour: "they" are just as bad as

> "us", "we" suffer just as much as "them", so you

> can't blame "us" for carrying on.


That's true, but I go on the equality act legally.


(1)Race includes?

(a)colour;

(b)nationality;

©ethnic or national origins.


We don't have to use the term racism though.

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...