Jump to content

Recommended Posts

giggirl Wrote:

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

> The so called "war against terror" has been used

> as an excuse to pass new laws which erode our

> civil liberties. And it is the thin end of the

> wedge. Once those laws are on the statute book

> they can be used for whatever purpose they can be

> made to fit.

>

> And what is this "war against terror" - our

> parents and grandparents came through two world

> wars for goodness sake.


I'm genuinely torn on this subject and still find myself swayed to both sides of the argument on different occassions. With that clarifier aside, however, I feel I should comment on this.


These laws are not the thin end of any wedge. They can be repealed at any time by any government. At the next election, vote LibDem. They voted against this legislation and it's not difficult to get rid of it.


Secondly, "the war on terror" is perhaps evocative phraseology. However, if you believe that domestic terrorism is not a serious threat to the citizens of Britain then you are very mis-guided. Senior figures in authority believe that a massive terrorist incident in this country is inevitable and is going to happen sooner rather than later. I am inclined to agree.


I don't think this government has always done the right thing when dealing with this threat. Some of the measures enacted are ill-thought out and risk alienating communities whose help we will need to root out terrorists in our midst. But, and this is a big but, to do nothing would be the greatest sin of all. Funding to the security services has massivley increased and police presence at stations and airports is now mandatory. The schism of losing liberties to defend lives is incredibly complex and I think politicians are tasked with an increidbly difficult job in trying to do so.


And the enemies in two world wars dressed in a uniform with big swastika on it. They were quite easy to spot. You also seem to forget the internment of Anglo-Germans on the Isle of Man during the war. The Americans did a similar thing to Japanese-Americans. Desperate times call for desperate measures etc. I don't condone those measures but to imply that civil liberties weren't eroded in the past in periods of national crisis is looking at the past with rose-tinted vision.

"They can be repealed at any time by any government. At the next election, vote LibDem. They voted against this legislation and it's not difficult to get rid of it."


Come on DC, this is disingenuous and you know it. Labour seems to be showing no signs of wanting to do so, in fact are still bleating on about extending the period of detention. Conservatives are keeping shtum, and though I almost certainly will be voting liberal to get this legislation overturned, you know as well as I that they ain't going to win.

So it would appear we're stuck with it.

This being a democracy if the people demand it electorally it will happen, but thanks to a steady diet of war on terror guff fed to the Sun/Mail readers of the nation and lots of politics of fear, this ain't going to happen soon either.


"if you believe that domestic terrorism is not a serious threat to the citizens of Britain then you are very mis-guided" (sorry, I'm fisking again)


Quantify serious threat. Do I think there's a high chance that there will be more deaths, yes I do. Do I think those numbers will compare to threat to citizens of drinking, smoking, car use, old people facing hotter summers or unable to heat their homes in winter? Not even close. Probably more people will die from paracetomol usage.

If our laws were good enough for facing the IRA (remember how we agonised over extension of detention without charge to 7 days, and how internment was the biggest propaganda gift we gave the IRA...do we learn nothing?) who were far better organised politically and militarily than our current threat, then why all this knee jerk legislation to the current crop of radicals?

Do I believe that domestic terrorism is a threat to British society and our way of life? Not in the slightest except insofar as we've managed to rollback centuries of progress to gain our citizens rights to free us from tyranny of our rulers.


Those easily spottable nazis managed to kill 50000 civilians with their bombs and yet we had Churchill saying that such threats must NEVER be an excuse to erode the rights of British citizens, so why should our modern leaders, these midgets of statesmanship feel they know better than he?


And as a final aside, the swastika was only sported by the enemy in one world war, in the first one those filthy sausage eating Huns had the temerity to want an empire, imagine that, how evil of them, of course they needed to be stopped at all costs. Imagine if they wandered about the world suppressing rights to self determination, raping resources, killing the locals, putting them in concentration camps ... err. ... emmm.....like what we did.

What Mockney P said - I agree totally.


Also, just found this on the BBC


"Why did Britain get rid of ID cards after World War II?


During the WWII the ID card was seen as a way of protecting the nation from Nazi spies. But in 1952, Winston Churchill's government scrapped the cards. The feeling was that in peacetime they simply were not needed. In fact they were thought to be hindering the work of the police, because so many people resented being asked to produce a card to prove their identity"

I pity anyone dropping into this thread with it's seemingly innocuous title!


I hesitate to pick up on DC's point after another recent thread - but




Are we in desperate times? I don't believe so. As Mockney says, that's not to say there isn't A threat. But to use the Isle of Man camps as a good example of desperate measures and it being repealed isn't a great idea IMO. That happened because of innate hositility of "Otherness" and not because of any sensible measure. And rights and freedoms are always fought for, never surrenderd

And I hope no one thinks I'm being blas?. Someone very close to me lost someone very close to them on that awful day in July.

But you get on with things and trust the police to do the best they can without giving up ones fundamental beliefs.


In the meantime if I really feared for my life I'd concentrate on looking both ways as I crossed the road, avoid sink estates at night, eat my 5 a day and cut down on my booze intake.

It is and it isn't disengenuous. GigGirl made the point that it was a thin end of the wedge and could never be got rid of. My point was that it could be. A the fact that the electoral system prevents the third largest political party getting electoral credibility isn't really the issue. Either it's a big enough deal for people to vote against the government on, or it's not. Iraq was the same. Lot's of people made lots of noise about it but really, when it came down to it, did Labour suffer in the following election. Not really. Oona King got a kicking from her constituency and the father of a dead soldier made Blair look a bit sheepish on the platform; otherwise it wasn't an important enough issue.


As for your point on more deaths from paracetamol or heat death - now who's being disengenuous? Are you implying that more resources should b put into highlighting the health implications of od-ing on painkillers. Goodness knows what the "we hate the nanny state" brigade would think of that one. If a grown adult wants to guzzle a bottle of calpol, let him etc etc.


Your comment on the Provos is more on the money but I'd offer the following clarifications - those with more knowledge on the subject may well set me straight if any of this is incorrect:


The majority of IRA terrorism took place in Northern Ireland, against Northern Irish citizens.

Most IRA attacks on the mainland were aimed at authority figures (politicians or the Royal Family) or organisations (the police, the finance cos in Canary Wharf) not the general public (obviously there are notable exceptions to this - Manchester for example)

Most attacks were preceded by a warning


The current crop of extremists do none of these things. Therefore different measures are needed. The IRA didn't have hundreds of computer disks with thousands of documents on that needed to be analysed during a custodial period. 7 days isn't always enough to do this. Perhaps longer is occasionally needed. Is an independent, politically neutral judicial system able to decide when this would be appropriate? I think it is and would trust them to use a longer detention periods judiciously.


Churchill's personal contribution to the victory in WW2 is debatable and he was turfed out of office at the first chance by the electorate. He was also the first to use chemical warfare on northern Iraqi tribesmen. I wouldn't bandy him about as some totem of political decency just becuase he's highly quotable. So was Oscar WIlde and I wouldn't use him to beat suicide bombers. ;-)


Finally, taking a swipe at the British Empire's track record on human rights is an easy target - I'd expect better from you than the rather simplified polemic of rape and pillage that you describe above.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: "I pity anyone dropping into this thread with it's seemingly innocuous title!

giggirl Wrote: You've got a point there. PeckhamRose! Look what you did.


Yeah sorry about that!

But I DID state the date just in case...

I am glad it sparked debate though.

I did not get around to seeing the film when it came out and was sad to see not many people in the cinema last night despite the director Chris Atkins' presence for Q&A after, either. He was nominated for a BAFTA by the way though did not win it.

Incidentally, my role was edited so I remain on the cutting room floor....! But a prestigious cutting room I think.

I'm not surprised at all, my role was distasteful though funny.

After all the discussion about Churchill I was at the Parliament Square mass / lone demonstration playing a spiritualist medium and was filmed at the base of Churchill's statue improvising my socks off, saying I was hearing him saying how appalled he was that Blair had done what he had done - and then I said, "And I think I'm getting Airey Neave too - well, bits of him".


The film was indeed shocking, and sadly has not got USA distribution which is truly sad.

I am sure it would get a lot of interest.



Ah yes....The days of gentlemen terrorists. We'll never see their likes again... let's take a moment to wish for their return


As for Labour not suffering because of Iraq - well what's an electorate to do? Chuck 'em out and replace them with... another party who would cosy up to Bush in exactly the same way. Given that circumstance most people took a punt on other issues I reckon

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing for though David.


Our current leaders actions are ok because Churchill wasn't all he was cracked up to be? Riiiiigght.


We're in danger of getting into a mutual fisk (ewww) but so what if the majority of the attacks were in N. Ireland, they're still British Citizens and, well, people aren't they (oh, Omagh? Phew, for a moment I thought it mattered). Mainland attacks were often indiscriminate, even when aimed at 'legitimate' targets, and those coded warnings were often counterproductive (depending how you see it) and ended up causing more rather than less death and destruction.


I don't believe the new threat is extraordinary somehow. I don't believe we need extra laws and I don't believe we need to live in fear (tanks at heathrow, I mean really). We need to keep debate free and open so as not to drive the disenfranchised into the arms of extremists, and ultimately we need to listen to them.


Do you think we beat the IRA? No, nor do I, the fact that Martin McGuiness is the number two in N Ireland says it all really. Believe it or not we really do need to think about our foreign policy and it's effects much more than we need to think about 90 day detention or what constitutes torture or turning a blind eye to extraordinary rendition.


British Empire may have been a cheap shot, but I thought it a justifiable response to a misunderstanding regards our First World War foe.


And no, I don't think I'm being disingenuous. I really do think the Billions we spent on stupid wars are better invested in hospitals, education, road safety and the things that actually matter to our day to day domestic needs.



*ooh, and I meant allergic reactions to painkillers and accidental ODs, not suicide. Paracetamol has some pretty nasty by-products you know.

* but now I think about it, yes suicide, taboo and the second biggest killer of young men after cars. Today's news shows that we haven't the resources to cope with depression, so everyone's being prescribed drugs that may not really do the job. How about huge investment in mental health?

Like I said at the start, I'm not solidly camped on either side of this but so this thread doesn't become a wooly liberal pinko hotbed of hippydom ;-) I think I'll continue to put up some defence of current policy.


Where to start though. Maybe the bits I agree with you on. Tanks at Heathrow - unnecessary political stunt. Foolish scaremongering. Negotiating with Adams, McGuiness et al - productive and beneficial. I'm not romanticising the IRA but I hope we can both see it's a very different enemy now, Sean's sarcasm aside. Now, where we probably differ...


Semantics on this is emotive so bare with me, but Al-Qaeda UK (AQUK) do not want a little independent bit of Britain to live amongst themselves and then leave the rest of us well alone. And to blame this solely on foreign policy is naive. The people who commit these attacks are dedicated to destroying British and Western civilisation as we know it. These people cannot be reasoned or negotiated with. They don't understand nuances of foreign policy debate.


I agree that overseas ventures have been costly and badly directed. That money could have been better spent on all sorts of lovely things but let's be realists momentarily. Sometimes you need to fight - and I think this might be one of those occassions.


I think it was Satre who said "terrorism is awful, but it's the only weapon the poor and oppressed have". These current terrorists are neither poor or oppressed. Merely intent on killing as many as possible.


You asked what am I for? I don't know. I don't believe there is some vast conspiracy by politicians to deprive us of our rights and liberties for their own ends. I believe that AQUK represent the greatest threat to UK national security since the end of the cold war and I think that on occassion unpalatable actions have to be taken in the short term for long term goals. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Even this I'm not 100% on - but I think these arguments need airing.


This isn't a fully thought out, cogent argument I'm presenting here, more a stream of consciousness expressing my unease at what is, I think, a underestimation of the danger presented.

I'm sure you're very intelligent, Kel. You can be at work and surreptitiously use a computer at the same time without being caught for example!


What do you think though? (1)Does the threat of terrorism bother you? (2)Do you feel your civil liberties are being impinged or (3)that your freedom of speech is being eroded? Answer me. ANSWER ME!! We have ways of making you talk!


One word answers only though please. ;-)

giggirl Wrote:

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

> Lightbulb moment - maybe we should ask those very

> nice people at Cinema Paradiso to screen the

> Taking Liberties movie at the EDT some time soon.

> What do you think?


Genius. I'm in.

Very honest post DC, which I appreciate and admire.


For my two penneths I do believe that many of those in power are mediocre at best. They don't seem to be the most intelligent nor capable bunch. To trust a police force's recommendations after the excesses of the flying squad in the 70s/80s, with the results being the many miscarriages of justice that ensued, and more particularly a police force (that I hugely admire) that has no right to be above criticism following Forest Gate and Stockwell.

Plus politicians don't seem to have much of a grasp on history which is absolutely vital especially if you're going to chuck your orb about the world.


So I think we're more sleepwalking into a becoming a State whose values are becoming corrupted. I don't believe there's a nefarious conspiracy to take away our rights, but that doesn't mean to say the destination may differ. Evil is often banal, and the road to hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions.


Hard fought freedoms seem to have been depressingly easily lost here where we take things for granted and are inclined to trust our leaders. In Spain* the first reaction of the bombs was to get rid of the government, and I find it rather depressing (as we've discussed before) that it barely figured in our subsequent election.


I genuinely and strongly believe that we need a fundamental rethink of politics to attract the best people to serve the country. Those who currently work in Law, banking, art, education or wherever and have a real talent and vision, not just keep repeating the word vision. I have a pretty fundamental distrust and dim view of those who choose to go into politics (this is a broad brush, and of course there are good people).


On the other side I see absolutely no evidence of an AQUK. So how then do we know 'their' intention of destroying western civilisation (which at any rate is unachievable form the outside).

I no more believe the rhetoric of our demamgogues' 'they hate us for our freedom' than any muslim should believe an extremist preacher talking of a 'crusade against islam'.


Mohammed Sidiq Kahn didn't offer random blind hatred aimed at the fall of the west, he had a pretty defined set of grievances, mostly to do with how our society is sitting pretty and had the luxury of not even considering Iraq or Afghanistan an election issue, while our troops and planes kill muslims*. The man was despicable, but some part of me can't help but feel he had a point, just as in the IRA campaign, afraid as I was of going to Harrods, that you know, they had a point.


Blair dismissed it out of hand, and it must be nice to be so assured of ones one right and righteousness when it was pretty much his policies alone that took the country to an illegitimate war.


I'm sorry to go on, especially when the thread was getting a bit lighter, but you know, I can't help myself ;)


* who value freedom more, having living memories of that struggle, lost but ultimately won. Indeed I've had emotional meetings with my own family, my own grandfather being imprisoned for the crime of owning a newspaper.


* and believe me, when a muslim trots out a party line like that, I'll talk about my experience in sarajevo, how grateful those I met were that our troops fed and supplied them at loss to their own lives, or the curious silence over Sudan where muslim militias kill christian civilians. My pedantry is equitable :)

A major concern that I have is that the various impingements on civil liberties forced through in the current global political situation are NOT designed solely to protect us from current terrorist threat. Rather, they are part of the agenda of a certain type of person who intuitively wants to be able to control others and who would want to introduce such legislation WHATEVER the situation. Gordon Brown is a wonderful example of this type of control-freak who views the chance of government as an opportunity not to serve his population but as an opportunity to forge the state in the shape of his own neuroses.


The idea that legislation once introduced can easily be revoked is naive IMO. The licensing laws were introduced as a transient measure during WW2 (or was it WW1?) and remained on the statute book for the rest of the century. If legislation such as ID cards, or the ability to detain people for 28 days is introduced I think there is roughly ZERO chance of it ever being repealed no matter how global dynamics change.


Remember, just about every piece of legislation passed (unless it repeals previous legislation) is a restrictive not permissive of what we can do and the Labour government under Blair was notorious as one of the most legislative governments in history.

As one of the 'very nice' people who help run Cinema Paradiso that certainly sounds interesting. We're slightly stretched at present getting ready for the new season (visit www.paradisofilm.co.uk for details) but I'll talk to the others and see what might be possible.
  • 2 weeks later...

Following up your request to screen Taking Liberties as part of the Dulwich Paradiso Film Club season...


Our March/April season is already planned (see www.paradisofilm.co.uk)but Taking Liberties will definitely be on the list to consider for next season.


If you want to be kept up-to-date with all future screenings just email us at [email protected] (with 'mailing' in the subject) and we'll be happy to add you to the emailing list. Hope to see you at one or more of this season's films!

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...