Jump to content

Recommended Posts

seemster - well it is my car surely I'm allowed to have MY rules? No smoking, no narcotics, no food and silence while I'm listening to the radio. Sorry does the rest of London's crazy lack of morals now apply to the interior of my car also?


DJKQ - you are taking it to an extreme which is unnecessary. A lot of this stuff is common sense for goodness sakes. Come on. All I am saying is certain things which SHOULD NOT need to be said to people, nowadays because of this general lack of consideration for others now aren't even considered as being antisocial. In fact, so much so, that people are now claiming I am the irrational one? Do you genuinely fail to see my point or are you just being awkward?


Louisa.

How does that make me bonkers? Makeup might be the starting point but what next? Shall we allow people to sniff drugs on public transport and brush it off as one of those things? We are on a slippery slope here into complete immorality. You cannot justify selfish behaviour on any level in the context of a public service which is being paid for by the people using it.


Louisa.

It IS a bonkers leap to suggest that tolerating the application of makeup in a public space leads to tolerance of others snorting cocaine. In case you hadn't realised it...illegal drug taking is against the law as are a whole host of other things. Applying makeup in a public space never will be, for good reason. That alone should tell you something about your use of it as an illustration.


You are not a puritan by chance?

Yes illegal drug taking is against the law and rightly so, but my point is that other lesser selfish acts should also be made illegal on public transport with hefty fines for those who choose to partake. It seems the only way in this age of immorality to get the message across to the people that the toleration of selfish behaviour is not permitted on any level, full stop, on a shared experience such as public transport, is by forcing fines on them. I personally would apply fines to a number of the different forms of antisocial behaviour observed. Mobile phones should be strictly prohibited and only used in emergencies. Music of any kind silent or not should be banned, as should eating and talking loudly. Alcohol goes without question and I Think that's banned already? Makeup application should in theory be a moral judgement for the individual, but I fear many would continue to abuse this option so I'd make it illegal too given half a chance. I'm sure lots of people would agree with me on this too. It would make for a much more pleasant experience. It would also go some way to helping those with skin allergies.


Louisa.

KidKruger this is no wind up. Read back over the previous posts and you'll see that in this day and age people seem to think its completely the 'norm' to indulge in self righteous activities which should be kept in a private space and not shared in the public arena. Application of various makeup products is an immoral act and the judgement to do it on a packed bus/train/tram is completely and utterly selfish minded. Going back to my previous comments, why can't we replace these selfish individual acts with some sort of community spirited events. Perhaps signs on buses encouraging people to talk to the person sat next to them rather than get the phone out and risk a fine? I think I am onto something here which could get people together and encourage community cohesion.


Louisa.

Very few people agree with you Louisa (thankfully) and it's not hard to understand why when you want to outlaw things like 'talking loudly'. I mean just who would enforce that and how? Would there be leeway for the deaf or when talking to the hard of hearing? On other thoughts, don't answer....this discussion is bizarre enough as it is :D

Sorry Louisa, what are minor irritations to most other train travellers seem to be serious banes in your life, to the point of over-obsession.

This is not a put-down.


It's just people. They can appear selfish and self-absorbed on a train. But fines / punishment ?? It may be a personal utopian fantasy for a few minutes after seeing something/one that p1sses you off, but no more than that !


The solution is in the provinces I'm afraid, where, overall, manners and personal habit in public is more thoughtful and more likely to meet your needs.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> seemster - well it is my car surely I'm allowed to

> have MY rules? No smoking, no narcotics, no food

> and silence while I'm listening to the radio.

> Sorry does the rest of London's crazy lack of

> morals now apply to the interior of my car also?

>

> DJKQ - you are taking it to an extreme which is

> unnecessary. A lot of this stuff is common sense

> for goodness sakes. Come on. All I am saying is

> certain things which SHOULD NOT need to be said to

> people, nowadays because of this general lack of

> consideration for others now aren't even

> considered as being antisocial. In fact, so much

> so, that people are now claiming I am the

> irrational one? Do you genuinely fail to see my

> point or are you just being awkward?

>

> Louisa.


Might be best, Louisa, to just keep Your Rules in Your Car and not expect the rest of us to follow them, on public transport or anywhere else...


Happy Easter

Just checking into this funny thread while searing the lamb.


See that Louisa has issued a "sense of humour alert" to DJKQ.


So am now firmly concluding - on a topic on which I was previously undecided - that Louisa is not a post feminist comic. And is in fact for real.

My frigidity has nothing to do with my ongoing campaign against rudeness and makeup application on public transport. I've used this forum to expose rudeness in the past and I don't see why I can't continue to encourage others to do the same now. My ideas of fines may seem extreme to some of you, but I guarantee given a generation London would become a much happier place. The fact is, this thread was setup by someone else equally shocked by this rude act, and just to point out ive received numerous private messages supporting my views and ideas so far - so please less of the smug self roghteousness oh vocal ones. And woodrot call me a troll one more time and I will suggest banning you from public transport too!


Louisa.

PaulK, sweetie, people on this thread have been calling other people "gross women" and likening their personal habits to dog poo and spit and you think I - by giving their humanity the benefit of the doubt and thinking they might be pulling our legs - am putting the boot in?

WM - unfortunate thread title but that was the only thing so far I've found to be even remotely offensive. You have also, conveniently, taken my points about other anti social acts, dog poo and spit, totally out of context and used them to justify your own flawed point. Are you a politician?


Louisa.

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...