Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Partly that the information was easily found and so very detailed. It felt odd.


Also I find the BNP repulsive and fidn teh idea taht I live near people who campaign for their aims and values uncomfortable.


Of course, I know already that its likely that people hold these views so my feelings came as a slight surprise - seeing it written down in spreadsheet form, I suppose.

Quick bit of googling (this is from the Mail's site, which so far is the only major paper I saw that had repercussions already on)


Today a DJ was dropped and a Merseyside police officer facing investigation after alarmed bosses started to scour the list for employees' names.

Talksport radio said it would 'no longer use' DJ Rod Lucas who covered late night shifts for the station earlier this year.


Edited for sloppy typing and to add of course police officers aren't allowed to be BNP members so if the Merseyside guy is then serve him right.

I suppose it would imply that they would be unable to treat all of the civilians whom they police equally and fairly.


One could make the same argument for doctors, teachers or firefighters, but I suppose the additional powers that the police force possess (and I have a feeling the same ban applies to the armed forces) makes it just that bit more urgent.

I guess that we can easily be lulled into feeling that the rather pleasent comfy world of the EDF relects East Dulwich. Thus to realise that some of the local population of the BNP is a bit of a shock to some. Of course ED reflects the general population with the full range of political views with most of us sitting in the middle.


Would we be as shocked to discover that there are Stalinists in our midst?

theres a few within an easy walk of Snorky hall I have found


Im torn with the BNP- they are scum, but leaking this is a bit off, even if it was their own infighting that did it


better to have them in public as a party where they can be taken to task on their odious views, than skulking around in anon. little cadres, plotting mischief


Theres alot of BNP sympathy amongst the masses, much more than this pitifully small membership list of commmitted nutters.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> I guess that we can easily be lulled into feeling

> that the rather pleasent comfy world of the EDF

> relects East Dulwich.


xxxxxxx


Pleasant comfy world of the EDF? Yes, mostly, perhaps.


I gave up picking up on racist or bordering-on-racist comments on the forum due to the grief I was getting from certain quarters.


There was one post very recently saying something like the poster had had "120 Africans phone me up to ask what was the strange noise from the engine" which I was sorely tempted to respond to but didn't want to start them all off again.


I am not surprised that there are BNP members in Dulwich. I expect they're everywhere. Stupidity and prejudice isn't confined to certain geographical areas.

actually snorky I don't think there is BNP sympathy amongst the masses. The thing about the BNP is that it is rather unpatriotic. It's just not british. What did we fight WW2 for? (yes alot of pensioners might have a legit gripe given how they are treated) but that is nothing to do with the BNP lot and their twisted world. Lots of people taking advantage of this country and what we offer - brits and non brits. but bottom line is, the BNP are a load of saddo, ignorant, twits. Being british (whatever your origin) is being above them. they are the lowest of the low. got a problem? blame a generic group- that is their answer. I cannot think of any person with an ounce of nouce who would admit to being a member. I have come across racsist people who when, pinned down, actually would not support them. The daily mail reader who is an avid churchill supporter could not really nail their colours alongside the bnp. the Marxis/leninist bunch are just not as obvously offensive as your run of the mill bnp bod.

I've been mulling over the issue of police not being allowed to join the BNP. I think that's wrong. It reminds me of when I worked in the MOD many moons ago and members of GCHQ were not allowed to strike.


Whether you agree with unions/closed shops/political parties or whatever, if they are legitimate under British law, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against.


My take on it anyway.

I don?t know if the legality of that rule has been tested yet PGC. It may be an internal police policy that will fall down when put in front of a court.


Or it may have already been tested by a court in which case I doubt the judge would have ruled it legal without sound reasoning not based on the obvious emotive issues.


Anyone got any knowledge on this?

I read that it was taken on board in 2004 and was unpopular (not I guess because the forces are rife, more the freedom of thought issue) and this is the first time it's been invoked, and I don't doubt an unfair dismissal hearing will be on its way).


I'm a little torn. Seeing as some forces have been found to be institutionally racist in the past and have taken great strides to change this, and especially as the inner cities have almost 50% ethnic minorities, I do see it as incompatible with maintaining community relations.


Could he be relocated to Hereford or some other 98% white area or something, as I'm filled with the same unease as PGC?

Here is my knowledge


If I was a black person, an asian person or indeed an Irish person living here 20 years ago, I would already feel suspicious of the police. If I also know they are a member of a party that wants me out of the country.. weeeellllll - it doesn't make for effective law r'n order does it?

That's almost not the the point though, Sean. I'm sure a lot of people we don't suspect harbour deeply unattractive prejudices (and even some we know).


I am just not comfortable with this ruling. Is justice blind except for some circumstances? Are the tenets of our law sacrosanct except for some circumstances?

Therein lies the entire problem with the BNP. They actively support an actual ?repatriation? process. At which point does that stop being freedom of thought and become hate speech against legitimate citizens of the country?


This is why we have courts though and for now they are legal so I suppose we have to respect their right to existance if not their ideology.

I guess therein lies democracy, they have there stated policies, and if the majority of the voters* agree, then they'll be the government.


That won't happen thankfully, but as long as stated policies don't contravene international law then they are free to espouse them. Though I'd be very suspicious if, say, a muslim burned down the reichstag parliament.


I'm no lawyer and I don't know where 'forced repatriation' stands, but I guess it comes close to contravention, not to mention totally unworkable. As long as they stay in cloud-cuckoo land they are no threat to democracy.


*yeah yeah, a majority government isn't necessarily a popular majority.

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...