Jump to content

Recommended Posts

neilson99 Wrote:

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

> Pleased to see three "non white immigrants" as Presiding officer and admin officials at the

> polling station keeping democracy in Britain going. One in the eye for you Farage, Nick Griffin

> and your racist mob.


The race your election officials seems strangely important to you. Most people don't give a damn. Would you have been terribly upset if they had been white?

Loz, the race of the officials isn't important at all to me - unlike Farage, Griffin et al.


The fact that UKIP, BNP etc are running a campaign based on racist/aggravated xenophic/fear mongering against anyone who isn't white, straight etc etc does upset me.

neilson99 Wrote:

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

> Loz, the race of the officials isn't important at

> all to me - unlike Farage, Griffin et al.


And yet you noticed their races and posted it here.


Incidentally - how did you know they were immigrants, and not born in the UK?

Because I stood and talked to them Loz. Fairly standard conversation technique of one person making a comment, asking a question, responding, other person asks question, you respond an so on. Amazing really where you get to when you don'[t stand around making wild uninformed assumptions.


You appear to be assuming I am white, middle class lefty - not quite on the money I'm afraid. Even if it was, not sure why that would make my views and more or less valid.


Please do take the piss and imply what ever you want about what paper I read or what I drink. (Neither correct by the way.) If you're an apologist, excuser or supporter of racist, xenophobic, homophobic parties then that's your call.

neilson99 Wrote:

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

> If you're an apologist, excuser or supporter of racist,

> xenophobic, homophobic parties then that's your call.


Nice try, but no dice, as you would see if you looked in the other political discussions going on around here. I just found your uber-PC proclamation tremendously funny. I could almost picture Malcolm from Viz's Modern Parents making the same comment.


But if you ever want a good politics discussion that goes deeper than your Guardian and Daily Mail op-ed headlines, then I'm in. As I watch the results come in and the on-going analysis, it's really quite an interesting phenomenon.

From the results in so far, all the main parties have a real problem. It's easy to brand UKIP voters as simpletons and nationalists, but there's something else going on imo. UKIP are doing really well in the Midlands and the North, and parts of the South coast, Kent etc.


We have an economy and policies that have shut down upward social mobility and ordinary working families in ordinary areas are feeling it. They are working harder with less to show for it and their children are really struggling to find jobs. When you have a political elite, who are disconnected from that, and the wake of a financial distaster like the banking crisis, where the culprits haven't suffered and it seems like business as usual to many, defection to parties like UKIP is what happens. Farage is as elitist as the rest of them, but he does a better job of playing the common man than Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> We have an economy and policies that have shut

> down upward social mobility and ordinary working

> families in ordinary areas are feeling it. They

> are working harder with less to show for it and

> their children are really struggling to find jobs.

> When you have a political elite, who are

> disconnected from that, and the wake of a

> financial distaster like the banking crisis, where

> the culprits haven't suffered and it seems like

> business as usual to many, defection to parties

> like UKIP is what happens. Farage is as elitist as

> the rest of them, but he does a better job of

> playing the common man than Cameron, Clegg and

> Miliband.



Yep, best vote in an ex stockbroker who wants further deregulation, fewer employment protection, an even smaller state and considerably less redistribution. That'll help those who are struggling eh?

I find this thread very patronising. Do we need to be told to vote or who for? Isn't democracy all about being able to make your own choices? Jeez. I guess the next thread we can look forward to seeing is one which advocates individuals being prosecuted for not voting. Give me strength.
As discussed in previous threads. Attempts to discourage people from voting UKIP have generally been accompanied with: insults, sarcasm and patronising language. I think that it is wrong to assume that UKIP voters are ignorant and stupid people who should be treated as such, I know a number personally and they are anything but that. When the debate becomes more rational, the reasons for not voting UKIP are convincing, but in that respect the mainstream political parties have failed to get their message across effectively. I do not support UKIP and I would not vote for them. But, in my mind the time has come for a more reasoned debate about Europe. Can it expand indefinitely? Does a one size fits all political and economic model work for all European countries? I suspect that the success of UKIP has been driven by the desire of a number of people to create a dialectic, one that has been generally denied to date.

Parkdrive Wrote:

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

> I find this thread very patronising. Do we need to

> be told to vote or who for? Isn't democracy all

> about being able to make your own choices? Jeez. I

> guess the next thread we can look forward to

> seeing is one which advocates individuals being

> prosecuted for not voting. Give me strength.


Eh? So we can't discuss our views on a forum. What are we meant to do here then? I don't think UKIP is the answer and that's based entirely on policy. I haven't patronised anyone, but given my opinion on a topic, on a forum. I'm generally confused.

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> No problem rahrah :)

>

> Parkdrive, all the parties base their campaigns on

> telling us who to vote for (ie them) don't they?



And I find that equally patronising, are we not able to read their manifestos, or decide who to vote vote for on the strength of party policies and mandates? The whole circus leading up to polling day has become a farce, give the electorate some credit for having the ability to make up its mind without being force feed party dogma.

Loz


>I could almost picture Malcolm from Viz's Modern Parents making

> the same comment.

>

> But if you ever want a good politics discussion

> that goes deeper than your Guardian and Daily Mail

> op-ed headlines, then I'm in.


I'm fine with my shallow and pithy interpration thanks very much. Besides, I can only dream of the levels of deep political insight and analysis you have provided in response.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I still don't get your objection Parkdrive -

> people shouldn't discuss political views? Party's

> shouldn't try to persuade people to vote for them?


Put simply I object to anyone trying to tell me whats best for me the implication being that they know better than me. Futhermore I object to the implication that I don't have the capacity to think for myself and that I need to be spoon fed.

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

    • 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.
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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