Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That's pretty much how I see it too El Pibe. This wasn't the act of an ideological movement for maximum effect. It was the act of two lone individuals on another innocent individual. I would say it has all the signs of something planned without much thought, rather than the other way round.


My point is that being able to carry out such a barbaric murder requires more than just the subscription to a particular view. For me, blaming jihadist ideology just seeks to place understanding and motive on something I think has no rationale to it. The only place blame ban be laid is with the killers themselves.

It's a good point TE44 but it's also a reflection of how desensitised to violence we've become. People don't always make the disconnect between movies and reality for example.


Personally I am not squeamish to blood and gore, except that is, when it's my own family, or friends, or pets. So that also might explain why people don't react in the ways we'd perhaps expect.

I think it does raise question DJK, I'm not sqeamish to blood or gore either, but meat cleaver in the hand of a guy who's just butchered someone. I can understand somone wanting to help but to film and post without a thought for he victims family, who might not have even been informed yet.Its interesring what the article says about random fanatics

and political terrorists, the definition of terror in this casis is not obvious by reactions.

If as the article suggest that peoples reality is intermingled with desire for fame or a loss of connection to the horror, what a sorry state.

It is an interesting article but I think some of his analysis is weak. In particular, this:


"One problem with the construction of the random fanatic, is that virtually any form of incomphrehensible act of violence ? a school shooting, a crazed knife attack ? can be redefined as an act of political terrorism. That is why far too many people cannot resist the temptation of defining the tragedy in Woolwich as an act of political terrorism."


I don't think it is too difficult to distinguish between the personal grudge against society that appears to drive some acts of multiple murder and other broadly politically driven acts. Furedi also says this:


"It is unlikely that the two men who perpetrated this despicable act of violence have been busy reading al-Qaeda?s terror manual. However there is little doubt that they are thoroughly immersed in the cultural values of reality entertainment."


On that point I just think he is wrong; I would be amazed if the two individuals responsible for the Woolwich murders do not have a history of radicalisation based on exposure to materials emanating from extremist Muslim individuals and organisations, and that is what is likley to have ultimately driven the act, rather than watching too much TOWIE.

DaveR, at last!

Further, it's fascinating and bewildering why there's such reluctance and resistance in using the "t" word. Perhaps it may be seen as somehow empowering the perpetrators and even glorifying their heinous acts; or is it generally misunderstood or perplexing or ?

Avoiding the word, as Obama did post Boston (though he succumbed after 24 hours), makes no sense. If this was without any social or political objectives, I'd agree, but this was not the case.

Like it or not, and you may call it the rantings of a madman or fanatic but "under which actions and threats designed to influence a government may be terrorism" (Terrorism Act 2006).

If it walks like a duck etc. It is what it is.

El Pibe, your example of the crazed, lone, nutter Breivak had right-wing political motives and was convicted of terrorism.


Agreed that the cub scout leader will probably get her medal of bravery, possibly have post traumatic stress for many years to come as may the other witnesses and those who assisted; the family and friends of the deceased will undoubtedly be distressed beyond comprehension and will be forever haunted and life will go on. . .

stacey-lyn Wrote:

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

> Agreed that the cub scout leader will probably get

> her medal of bravery, possibly have post traumatic

> stress for many years to come as may the other

> witnesses and those who assisted; the family and

> friends of the deceased will undoubtedly be

> distressed beyond comprehension and will be

> forever haunted and life will go on. . .


Was with you until that last paragraph She was astonishingly brave and I hope she goes on to have a good life despite her shitty experience. I am afraid your cynical ennui goes a step too far and does you no credit - although I am sure that will bother you not one jot.

I think (to echo Pibe earlier) most people identify terrorism with wider organisation.. Plans made, orders given, doers dispatched. Of course this may turn out to be the case in due course, but at present this simply doesn't walk like the terrorist duck.


To me it seems like some sort of grotesque and deluded personal vanity project, carried out by two deeply disaffected men. Terrorists don't stroll around afterwards chatting to passers-by, asking to be filmed, waiting for the police to arrive. The event - and aftermath - is bizarre in the extreme.

I did wonder if they were hoping to be "martyred" when the police arrived.


That said, even if they had some accomplices (there have been some arrests), I still don't know if I think of it differently to *bob*.


I am not trying to make light of it at all, and I'm not disrespecting the dead, but the amateur nature of it did make me think of the English bloke in 4 Lions.

Clearly we all have different ideas of what constitutes terrorist.


For me it failed in what surely must be the primary definition, to cause terror. It seems to by and large have been met by indifference*, through grotesque bemusement to lip licking islamophobia/racism.


All the rest about political intention, organisation etc is kind of quibbling.


*i think djkq is quite right that this comes from having been desensitised over many years, from Vietnam through Yugoslavia and decades of strife in the Middle East.

The reality tv thing is quite telling, there's a woman walks casually past it all with her shopping, doesn't even bat an eyelid, obviously thinking it was a drama being filmed or something, hardly surprising given the surreal nature of the events.

Otta, given some of the trials of late, four lions is increasingly looking like a documentary.

There is something inherently absurd about it all, but as the London bombs show, bumbling amateurs can cause a great deal of harm.


I imagine the arrests are lots of Al-Muhajiroun types who have been 'on the radar'. Probably anyone anime cloudy has spoken to in the last ten years.

Did anyone watch my brother the Islamist, it was fascinating and thorough depressing all at once? It was also very four lions.


Love autocorrect, Anjem Choudry.

Oooh is that an elephant in the middle of the room?


It's not terrorism out of the 1970s, it's not even that 'political' it's fanatical, deluded (and this case failed) religious martyrdom>


All religons are medieval claptrap, and followers of the one that no-one dares speak of, just this week have blown up scores of fellow countryman in Baghdad as part of some 8th Century schism, hung a handful of 'bandits' and left them there to rot in a public square as a warning to others in their Kalamite, and spurred some deluded idiots in Woolwich to run over and decapitate a young dad.


But, we can crow about Catholic priests as taht doesn't cross the code of the Guardian.


I raise a glass to Hitchens, be he in heaven, or hell or just resting from such absurdity in blissfull nothingness

Without the seperation then criticism of the religon Islam makes you anti people who describe themselves as Muslim or are part of the Muslim community or of a Muslim background, and so racist. So Islam doesn't get criticised very much as some liberals horror of being called racist is above any other consideration. Whereas say the Catholic Church is rightly condemned for its multiple sins we have vast waves of silence about other religions intolerance say.

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...