Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"Good point but didn't they initially grab power after being given military support by the Americans during the cold war?"


I know this is a side conversation, but no. The Americans did support the Mujahadeen, but those fighters will happily tell you that said support was marginal, except insofar as a couple of shipments of stinger missiles (some of which ended up in S Armagh) did hamper the Soviet's freedom to helicopter troops, a bit.


Post soviet withdrawal (skint rather than defeated as such, maybe realisation that killing a milion afghans hadn't actaully achieved anything either) a rather brutal period of warlord rule and civil war ensued which ended in much of the country when the Taliban took power. For those, particularly in Kabul, who saw the civil war end, the Taliban were marginally the lesser of two evils, but few of the several million refugees from the previous 2 decades of strife (far and away the highest ex pat refugee population in the world) actually chose to return.


The Taliban were pretty much entirely the creation of the Pakistani secret service, setting up the madrassas amongst the forlorn refugees that server as recruiting centres, in order that they could consolidate a hold over the area, a very successful policy frankly. The US had links with the Taliban as they thought them a buffer to Iranian ambitions, but were very much minor supporters and far from responsible.


The ISI (Pakistan's security service) has still not forgiven the US for kicking the Taliban out of power. The ISI's hand has been suspected in much activity that has destabilised Pakistan since, including the assassination of Bhuto, and have supported the "Taliban's" resurgence.


Long story short, yes Britain has dropped bombs on Afghanistan, no that's not why she left, Taliban is not the west's fault, but as hardly any of the promised cash to rebuild the country has actually ended up their in any other form than military, we can't exactly hold our heads up high.


However the intention is to eventually create a stable state to which people can return. A fluffy, friendly state with women's rights is however a very long way off and there's little we can do about that to be fair.



Aaaaanyway...as you were....

A fluffy, friendly state with women's rights is however a very long way off and there's little we can do about that to be fair.



I feel a little unkind saying this to Mockers as I know he pretty much defines Good Egg, but did you really mean to put women's rights and fluffy in the same sentence?

Keef Wrote:

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

> Mischief making man!

>

> I don't think for a second Jeremy is suggesting

> the war is speculation, just that it carries

> little weight in this situation. More or less the

> point you made earlier wasn't it? ;-)



Yep... just pointing out that we have no way of knowing whether "we bombed her home" as has been suggested, whether she left because of the recent war, whether she was seeking asylum from the Taleban, or whatever.

is the story this sort of thing is happening all the time? Because if it isn't then it's just a small statistical blip that happens in any system. From what I read in the Standard (I know.. I know) today, 3 people in the council have been sacked because of it and they are actively looking to rehouse the family in cheaper accomodation anyway.


So what's the fuss about really?


And has it been worth the price of unleashing all the bile that's out there? If 1% of that mob used 1% ofthat energy and focused it on things that REALLY affect their lives then we might see some positive changes...

Crazy idea here, completely unprecedented I know and couldn?t possibly work but here you go: Regulate the cost of private rentals and if you are going to have a social housing system make sure the councils have enough of their own housing stock.


I know I know it sounds nuts. It was just one of those mad thoughts I sometimes have.

I know. I?m sorry. And to think that the only reason they let us play with guns at school was on the proviso that one day we would shoot communists with them.


Hopefully one day the government will employ someone to make sure I don?t write this sort of dangerous nonsense when I have me little turns.

> Regulate the cost of private rentals

No. It would be unworkable.


> if you are going to have a social housing system make sure the councils have enough of their own housing stock.

Yes. Blame past governments who have encouraged people to buy their council flats, for the sake of a short term cash injection.

is the story this sort of thing is happening all the time? Because if it isn't then it's just a small statistical blip that happens in any system. From what I read in the Standard (I know.. I know) today, 3 people in the council have been sacked because of it and they are actively looking to rehouse the family in cheaper accomodation anyway.


So what's the fuss about really?


And has it been worth the price of unleashing all the bile that's out there? If 1% of that mob used 1% ofthat energy and focused it on things that REALLY affect their lives then we might see some positive changes...




This reads as oddly familiar. Strange.

Going to sound snotty here, but... weird one on immigration:


The population of Singapore is only 4.5m, and the current business plan [sic] is to make it 6m inside 5 years. It's a very mixed bag with three major languages and many more religions.


From a practical perspective it's as near a zero crime environment as statistics can get. Blaming multiculturalism for UK crime or benefit fraud is pretty infantile.


Racism is peculiar in SG in that it's commercial rather than divisive (tribal rather than exclusive), and homosexuality is unfortunately illegal but sensibly never challenged (to paraphrase the government, 'this country does not have a view on private activity'). I should add that public displays of affection are discouraged whatever your orientation.


I struggle to believe that the UK's perception of diversity is being met when the ethnic origin of the occupant of a council flat is necessary to discuss whether councils are paying too much?


Wouldn't it be quite enough to discuss the family size and location?

I suspect that not many contributors on this thread,thus far,have attempted to gain Council funded accommodation in any shape or form.:))


It would be fascinating to hear from anyone here who continually, for literally decades, could not obtain said assistance from their local Council during that period and how they feel about someone with no previous allegiance or connection with this Country arriving and receiving PRIORITY service over themselves!


Can anyone explain to me why any Family arriving legitimately from abroad should be given PRIORITY over the indigenous population of this Country when it comes to Local Government assisted housing?


I'm reminded of a friend who told me around 6 months ago that there would be no accomodation available from his local Council for years to come. Who were that Council? Why the very same = Ealing!

They haven't got enough propoerties left to house them in, they've sold them off to tenants under the Right to Buy. These lucky people have now made a massive profit on selling these homes on the open market so they can buy their dream homes. Thus, the Council has to use private properties; I wouldn't be surprised if they were taking on the properties that were originally bought by some of the tenants.


It's become a farce. Council housing was originally for people on low incomes, who couldn't afford to rent privately but there are people living in them now who are doctors, lawyers, businessmen etc. They probably became doctors, lawyers etc after securing the accommodation but I think that once people in Council properties earn over a certain amount, they should be made to find their own accommodation and the properties left for others who need them.



Brendan Wrote:

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

> Crazy idea here, completely unprecedented I know

> and couldn?t possibly work but here you go:

> Regulate the cost of private rentals and if you

> are going to have a social housing system make

> sure the councils have enough of their own housing

> stock.

>

> I know I know it sounds nuts. It was just one of

> those mad thoughts I sometimes have.

???? Wrote:

TLS - don't hold your breath, if you're white, british and working class you're scum....and will be accused of racism for raising the point


Sadly,my profile is worse than that,much worse,in fact....and I have a further confession to make (although,to be fair I think its become quite apparent now)...

I'm also mmmm...can't even bring myself to write it down. I'll try again and write it down as "discreetly" as possible.....

I'm mmmmmmale as well (hopefully I disguised that word as well as I could)..What a Combo for 2008 :)) but there is one cause for celebration though!


Drum Roll please Maestro:-


Remember it is working people who have paid all their taxes and other deductions throughout( in my case 37 working years) that are funding this and NOT the Governments or Local Councils who have no money of their own.


This means that many of the Guys who could NOT get any property through the social housing schemes either now or in the past are helping to contribute and subsidise those who have come here and paid nothing whatsoever by way of taxes and have obtained Council assisted Housing (!)


I,re-iterate a very salient point. This subsidy of others who have been forced to flee from wartorn Countries ( by no means the majority) to The UK would be much more acceptable if they themselves could have received the same benefits which in many cases from The Late 1960's onwards were denied to them when THEY were desperately in need of them!


So they not only have to contend with the fact that the system has been heavily biased against them for decades but have to help pay for people who have leapfrogged over them in the queue and have gained said Housing who have not paid anything at all (in some cases).>:D<


p.s Its akin to someone who is,say,24-26 years old now, trying to gain a Promotion within the same Company for the next 15 years without success and when a promotional opportunity finally arises not only does it go to someone coming in from elsewhere but they are forced to contribute to his/her greater salary,as well.:))

I think your point about sold off properties may not be quite right, as council housing is still estimated to be around 20% of the country's housing stock.


I also note that according to census, in 1971 over 70% of council housing tenants were economically active, this has now dropped to less than 40%. This means there are less 'rich' people in council housing than there have been at any time in the past.


The largest challenge with council housing is not immigration, but security of tenure. This means that couples whose extended families have long since flown the nest, or upwardly mobile familes, are still living in large family homes and can't be down-sized. IMHO this isn't reasonable as it doesn't conform with the social precept 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs etc.'. However, I can imagine the outcry at granny being kicked out of the family home.


It isn't racist to say that internal revenue should support local contributors as a priority. However it is disingenuous to claim that you're 'getting your own money back'. The majority of those receiving social support take out far more than they ever contribute, meaning that they're accepting funds from total strangers. Not all of these total strangers are likely to accept one person's perspective on who is the most needy.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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