Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Getting back to the scantily clad females, I really hate it when a woman/young girl wearing a belt/micro-skirt or whatever kind of mini skirt acts like she didn't mean to put it on or put it on by accident and spends all evening pretending to try and pull it down while trying to look slightly embarressed, I feel like saying, what did it shrink on the way to the club then, as I am sure it was that short when they put it on and checked it out in the mirror before they left the house.
Old women trying to dress young! women please age with class and dignity! You can still look sexy, without looking like an old slapper, tits hanging out and ar*** showing is not sexy if wobbling/swinging all over the place with a mind of their own, batty riders at 44-50 yrs old are seriously not sexy, (well not on the old bag I saw with the saddle bags for hips and cellulite!) Noooo.... put it away pleeeeease..........And the trowels of 3 inch makeup do not hide the lines, bags under eyes, serious crow feet, they accentuate them!

Bill Oddy

Rolf Harris

Tony Robinson

Bruce Forsyth


and any other pathetic unfunny over the hill entertainer, who cannot make me laugh and yet embarrass me enough to shout things like 'SHUTIT'.

Old comics would conveniently drop dead by the time they hit fifty, have they no shame now?

Or have they just lost their timing!

Bad manners on buses.


1) People who put their feet on the seats. You'd never do it at someone else's house, or even in a different public place like a cafe or pub, so why is it alright to do it on a bus?


2) Those who sit in the aisle seat and put their bags on the window seat, thereby signalling to others that they are anti-social and selfish.


3) Of a similar type are those who, when you need to get off the bus, only swivel round in their seat rather than standing up and letting you out properly. It is worse when you need to get into a seat and they do the same, and they're usually the kind of person who does 2).


And 4) People who stand on the lower deck but crowd round the narrow space between the entrance and the stairs. Move back you morons!



There. That feels better.

Amen on the buses points barry


my gripe - airport security. I have never ever ever bought into all of the "increased security" checks at airports since that thing in Nuevo Yorica happend - especially all of the hand-luggage 100 ml liquid stuff


Am I to really believe no-one had thought of these things before? Of course not


In any case, as of this week where some airports have relaxed these rules and some haven't, the whole thing is revealed as the shambles it really is


Now - can I keep my belt, shoes and dignity the next time I go through teh gates please?

Grrr. Airports. Going to Atlanta last year I was x-rayed, frisked, shoes x-rayed, frisked & bags searched at the gate, and then bags & shoes x-rayed getting off the plane!


The whole liquids & sharp objects (razors!) make it a real pain if your travelling anywhere for just a night or two. Then there's the one piece of carry on which depends on airport, airline, country & phase of the moon! Always handy if you're doing an overnight trip with a laptop.


I'll stop ranting now. I've really had enough of current airport security!! (6)

Agreed SMG - though airport security here is nothing compared to what we experienced coming out of Kenya a year ago. We went through several different procedures: your basic x-ray of luggage; someone then rummaging through check-in luggage; metal detectors and footwear bomb detectors; a pat-down search; and finally someone going through your hand luggage. And that's before you get through to duty free! You are then subject to a further scan/search just before you get on the plane. In all, about three hours of queueing.


Mind, coming out of the UAE last year was a breeze - straight through the x-rays and detectors and into the lounge - which is odd because one would have thought it a bigger target. Odd.

I've seen that mentioned by a few people on here (about YMs not being very Y) and have to take issue


First it's a shade mysoginistic and secondly it's untrue. Many of the mum's I see out and about seem very nice indeed.


And I've met several forumites who happen to be "mummies" as well who are well worth of the decription YM - so there

I didn't say it was - just suggested there was a shade/undercurrent. And not to your post but in way it's just TOO easy to reverse the phrase


And do you honestly observe none when you are out and about? High standards indeed that man


Kel - it probably varies from person to person. Some people expect Monica Belluci standard. Others are happy to anser the "would you?" question in the affirmative ;-)

People who stand in the supermarket queue for ages - then only when they have had their groceries put through the till - and bagged them do they start to look through there enormous handbag for their purse... spend ages, looking for it - checking every pocket.. pulling out all the junk for everyone to see - then finally locating it... Grrr - could they not have perhaps started looking for it whilst they were queuing..?!

Oh - and bus drivers who stop the bus directly next to a litter bin or tree so you have to negotiate getitng on or off the bus like an assualt course!

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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