Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? Wrote:

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

> ...but what would you have in place?



just let the people on here decide, based on incomplete evidence that they've read in the papers, rather than trusting people who have heard two sides of a story presented in court

Perfect darling Mr Keef,


I do not mean to display any indication of a lynch mob mentality but I feel that it is highly irregular that a grown man admitted to befriending and sharing his bed with young boys. It beggars belief that this man who dangled a small baby from the window of a hotel has been permitted to adopt children. It seems that the law does not apply to some people because of their position.


In my experience, all newspapers, irrespective of whether they are broadsheets, put spin on stories - some have even been known to print fiction (gasp)!!!


I find it very odd that hysterical people queue up for hours to buy tickets to see this man. In my measured opinion, Michael Jackson is strange, and I consider him a threat to children and young boys.

Legal Disclaimer - GG and JK have both been found guilty - MJ has not - there is absolutely no inference or presumption of guilt at all intended in the juxtaposition of their names in this thread.


Can we get Jonathan King to open it with his classic Everyone's Gone to the Moon (yes they bloody well have !)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwM9keQZwYI&feature=related


Gary can do warm up - Hello Hello Good To Be Back


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAhu0suEHfU


And Michael who has now healed the world with his warbling can bring the house down with his classic Lost Children




Watch out for the paedo crabs - I suspect Moxton's might be up to no good ...


DM, I agree that he's a weird man, and shouldn't be a parent, not just because of the abuse claims, but because those kids are growing up in a bizarre circus. However, the guy can dance, and has released some great pop music, and will put on quite a show. I'd go if someone gave me a ticket. It's like saying you shouldn't go and see the rolling stones because they do lots of illegal drugs and sleep with women who could be their granddaughters. Basically it has little to do with whether they put on a good show or not. Gary Glitter was just shit, and no one would want to see a show of his even if he was a nice man.
Apart from the fact that there is enough suspicion to brand him a paedophile and people shouldn?t be listening to his music let alone supporting him by forking out money to do so he is also just a fucking pop singer prancing about singing someone else?s songs. Comparing him to the Rolling Stones is like comparing a professionally prepared meal (not the world?s best or most original mind as the stones aren?t that good) to a bowl of badly set Angel Delight.
I was discussing this with my son (14) a few days ago who came up with the argument that MJ wasn't found guilty of paedophilia. I grew up with MJ, have most of his albums on vinyl and lots of Jackson 5 on old cassettes. I used to wear a big M J badge on my jacket as a wee one, in other words a big fan of his music. However, I don't think that my morals would allow me to go to see him now even though he was found not guilty.

I wonder how many of the forum would go, even if all the allegations had not happened.


I'm not interested in seeing him. I think I've just moved on. He's turned in a bit of a joke, with some of the most dreadful plastic surgery, this side of Liza.


I occassionally watch 'Billie Jean' on YouTube. I still think it's a corker.


He's 50, I'm 40. I just don't fancy standing and screaming for a couple of hours at MJ.

Just for the record, I did not compare him to the rolling stones. I pointed out that a person / band's of stage behavious has little to do with whether they'd put on a good show or not.


At the end of the day, we will never know the truth for sure. There is no smoke without fire, and I think that he is a bit dodgy, but it is possible that he is a mentally ill man, and sees no harm in having sleep overs with kids, who knows.


DM was right to point out the bit about him dangling his kid over the balcony, but what about this


http://members.cox.net/renegade_sith2/miscjunk/steve-irwin-feed-croc-baby.jpg


No one seemed to get too upset about that one, which for me was just as bad, but he was a fun lovable Aussie, so that's okay.

Quite right Keef, no one can say a bad word against Steve Irvin. Especially after the episode where he was in the back seat of an Australian air force F18 Hornet flying over a place where crocs mate and when he was handed the controls (God knows what the Pilot was thinking) Sir Steve manages to put the aircraft into a bowel wrenching nose dive so he could "git a closa look".

Sweet Keef,


I must point out that I thought Steve Irvin was a complete and utter arse. When I saw that photo I thought that his kids should be taken into care and he should have been horse whiped. No, really.


I think that anyone who puts their children's lives at risk like this are at the very least guilty of criminal neglect.

And also, I don't think that you can compare sleeping with lots of women and taking drugs and drinking heavily compares with being a preditory paedophile. Bill Wyman should have been put in prison for his relationship with Mandy Smith. We should not tolerate paedophiles in our society. This is a vile crime and it is not acceptable, I do not care how rich or high up they are in the Roman Catholic Church...

Brendan Wrote:

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

> Apart from the fact that there is enough suspicion

> to brand him a paedophile and people shouldn?t be

> listening to his music let alone supporting him by

> forking out money to do so he is also just a @#$%&

> pop singer prancing about singing someone else?s

> songs. Comparing him to the Rolling Stones is like

> comparing a professionally prepared meal (not the

> world?s best or most original mind as the stones

> aren?t that good) to a bowl of badly set Angel

> Delight.



this post is wrong on so many levels.

Michael Jackson had a father named Joe. He apperenttly was not a nice man to his children.

Michael Jackson recorded some great pop music as part of the Jackson 5. And they performed brilliantly live.

Michael Jackson recoded some great pop music as a solo performer. And he performed brilliantly live.

Michael Jackson reached a peak of fame where ubiquity doesn't even start to describe his way of being in our lives.

Michael Jackson met Jordy Chandler. And his parents.

Michael Jackson had allegations made against him by Jordy's parents. The implication was he did a bad thing.

Michael Jackson went to Europe for a while. He had a problem with prescription drugs. Or it might have been an issue.

Michael Jackson went back home and donated a large sum of money to the Chandler family.

Michael Jackson then was for some years said to be 'suspect', when it came to children.

Michael Jackson came back to London in 2009 and people bought tickets to his shows. In droves.

Chamone.

HonaloochieB Wrote:

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

> Michael Jackson had a father named Joe. He

> apperenttly was not a nice man to his children.

> Michael Jackson recorded some great pop music as

> part of the Jackson 5.


when he was a child himself


and as such michael had a very unusual upbringing and has grown up to be a very unusual adult, one that certainly has odd and questionable relationships with children - but does that make him a paedo? (beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever the US standard of proof is?) without further evidence, no


i wouldn't trust him with my children and i've no interest in seeing him live, but to say e.g. that because there's suspicion it's fair to brand him a paedo is not right

Then why did he pay $22,000,000 dollars to the Chandler family in an out of court settlement - if he was innocent - WHY - he would have had the best lawyers money could buy - if he was innocent he could have had his day in court and be cleared on the evidence presented. He chose not to and paid a HUGE amount of money. To all the apologists or the innocent until proven guilty crowd explain away that.


This is not the actions of an innocent party and then think about the revulsion you feel for Gary Glitter take away the talent issue and then hang your heads in shame.

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...