Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's unfortunate that Mr Mills' wrongdoing has been linked with Ms Jowell, and there is no justification for it. A rigorous Parliamentary Inquiry into the matter comprehensively cleared Ms Jowell of any breach of the rules, judging that, as dulwichmum points out, it is not an offence to be unsurprised by ?350,000 in the housekeeping (or, for that matter, to overstate your rent by a factor of five).


Mistaking the price of a house for small-change, though odd, is not in itself wrong. It might not be the best qualification for someone who's supposed to be delivering a multi-billion-quid project to a swamp near Stratford, but it's not wrong. Not like, for example, being browbeaten into war on the basis of a press-officer's googling. But I'm sure that was just a silly mistake, too.

If she cannot smell a rat in her own bed - then she is certainly not capable of being on the ball as a Government minister. She is looking after the runaway train that is the Olympics budget - does anyone have confidence she will be able to sniff out the inevitable corruption and back handers that bring taxpayers to their knees? No one is saying Tessa Jowell has performed a crime - just merely suggesting she does not have the aptitude for the good of the country.


She is our local MP and I've not heard from anyone who has ever spotted her in the locality - why are these tram lines and/or East London line extentions not coming to East Dulwich!?


At the next EDF drinks we should nominate an Independent candidate to take her down at the next General Election ;-)

This seems bizarre, and I have faith in the readers of this fair forum to interpret wisely!


Firstly, SQ1, it's medieval to make a wife responsible for her husband's behaviour, let alone incriminate her for it. I'm disturbed that you think that way. I'm pleased to see the UK as a progressive society where women are recognised as independent individuals rather then mere chattel. Your own interests would best be served by not pursuing agendas that will result in your own subordination.


Perhaps you feel that she shares culpability by not making further enquiries as to the provenance of her husband's fees. However, if her husband was as great a ciminal as you make out, it would not be beyond his abilities to demonstrate these as evidence of his expertise, not dodgy dealings. The number of responses on the 'con-woman' thread demonstrate how the best in society can often be victim to the worst.


Perhaps you feel that she should involve herself more actively in her husband's affairs? Personally I'd prefer her to spend her time in a more focused way, delivering the services her constituents demand in the role she has been elected to.


I'm sure if the expos? had revealed she was working on her husband's business rather than her government role, you'd be up to hang her for that too.


Whether I agree with her policies is by the by. She should be judged on those. That's what elections are for, use your vote wisely!


This smells like a dirty, nasty smear campaign: housing estate scandalmongering. I sincerely hope that our politics never descend into that filthy gutter. Those that try to drag us there should be chastised and ostracised.


No witch hunt here please!

No, we're not talking about a witch hunt. We're talking about a police investigation.


Here is the Italian police officer leading the investigation, talking about what happened when they sought information from Tessa Jowell's husband:




With reference specifically to Tessa Jowell's behaviour, Hugenot, viewed apart from that of her husband, you seem to be missing the point. I understand you are not a resident in the UK, but choose to live abroad. So perhaps you are not familiar with the laws of the United Kingdom. Any and every citizen of this country who receives a large sum of money, has to account for where it comes from. This is to try to prevent money laundering by vicious drug traffickers.


Any person who had a mortgage in their name paid off with a cash sum of hundreds of thousands of pounds, is required by law to know and to state where that money came from. Claiming that it came from a husband, mate, son etc, etc, and that you did not therefore trouble to find out where they got it from, has not been accepted as a defence in other cases. Likewise anyone who tries to pay even more than a few thousand pounds into a bank account, is required to tell the bank where it came from, and the bank has to keep a record of the explanation given.


Any other citizen who acted as Mrs Jowell has done, would be very likely to be investigated for money laundering.


By the way, censorship may be the order of the day in the country of your choice, but it is not popular in the UK.

Snoozequeen1, "Ms Jowell was cleared of any wrongdoing after an investigation by UK parliamentary officials."


You have obviously read the parliamentary report and disagree with it, do you have some other information that we should know about? She was investigated and she was cleared, if you know of something that would overturn that decision then report it.

As Craig said:


"Either Jowell did not notice she was living with a major criminal - in which case she is far too stupid to be a minister - or she was complicit - in which case she is far too corrupt to be a minister.


No ifs or buts are possible.


Only when Mills was exposed to the media did Jowell abandon her husband - sacrificing her marriage for her political career. If she had remained loyal to him it would have at least been some slight saving grace. In fact the woman is a total disgrace.".......

For some there is no 'innocent until proven guilty', the legal approach of the lynch mob is more attractive it seems.


SQ1, you're hysterical! Am I to be the target of your unfounded allegations now? Oh woe. Guilty of the crimes of living in a foreign land, guilty of censorship, guilty of encouraging drug trafficking? I can see you now, leaning across the garden face with a string of invective and a scowl to frighten a bulldog. Perhaps you're pointing out my house with a stabbing action and purple cheeks? ;-)


I can assure you that I'm as British as your indignation, and as East Dulwich as the roundabout at Goose Green. Please consider me as adding a touch of tropical frisson, not unlike the plam tree overlooking the EDT or the potatos on your plate.


I've made no views on David Mills activities, it certainly seems that he has been shamed and brought to rights. Congratulations to all.


What I take issue with is your persistent mud slinging at Tessa Jowell. She has been investigated and found to be innocent of any improper conduct - a charge that carries a much smaller burden of evidence than a court. As a lawyer all of his contact is with people on the cusp of legality, all of it. He's a lawyer. As his wife, you can't investigate every client, you wouldn't be able to do the day job.


Or perhaps that's your agenda, you don't want her to have a day job?


Not for you the legal process, the evidence of criminality. For you she needs to be shamed, socially crippled, humiliated even, and it needs to be done publically. You want to get her, and don't care if it's wrong or right.


TLS, well really, she's not stupid, she's just human.

Money laundering, fraud, theft, perverting the course of justice, manslaughter, assault and murder are only considered crimes when the acts are committed by ordinary civilians. Police officers and government ministers can, and regularly do, commit these offences without ever facing prosecution for their offending behaviour. Just wait until Davie Cameron and his snivelling bunch of pampered toffs take office. They'll be raping wenches, committing complex acts of frauds and perverting all courses of justice - and they'll get away with it every time. No doubt, they will be even worse than Nu-Nazi Labour.

postmodern Wrote:

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

> snoozequeen1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> This is to try to prevent money

> > laundering by vicious drug traffickers.

>

> What about non-vicious drug traffickers?


Most drug traffickers are vicious...but fair....

I wonder why viciousness comes with the territory. I guess I will have to discount trafficking as a career option then as I am not vicious.


Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

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

> postmodern Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > snoozequeen1 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > This is to try to prevent money

> > > laundering by vicious drug traffickers.

> >

> > What about non-vicious drug traffickers?

>

> Most drug traffickers are vicious...but fair....

Craig Murray should not really talk - I could tell you more about his backgound, but needless to say, hes not the best perosn to speak about integrity


TJ is in a position of responsibility and to get mired in this is shoddy and unbefitting, despite the handy / useful seperation aspect.

tiger ranks Wrote:

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

all goverment officials are dodgy and they all take backhanders its the goverment way its been going on for years and it will never stop


At the risk of attracting the ire of the Administrator - that is complete and utter crap crap crap crap crap crap.

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...