Jump to content

Recommended Posts




Of course they were - but remember how much they said regulation was red tape they could do without and the freer they were to do business the better for everyone? And it was a brave government that stood up to them for fear of losing all that "talent" to other countries. That mantra hasn't changed much...

Surely we're in danger of cutting off our noses etc.?


The first internal combustion engines were the size of houses and equally threatening. The current ones are small enough to fit in a remote controlled car.


We can't expect to refine the technology if we don't employ it?

  • 6 months later...

It's not the claim is it Sean. Wind, wave, sun, none of it's going to deliver what we need for decades so either we change our lifestyles dramatically - think no foreighhn holiday, imports by sea and slowly, reduction in plastics, ration electricity, get rid of cars and that includes taxis, etc etc or we have to take these 'risks' - them the choices. Guardian readers seem to think a few hugely innefficient, expensive and actually huge resource using (to manufacture and service) wind farms in the Thames estuary and a barrier in the Severn and it'll all be Hunky Dory (*genuine use not Bowie song referrence) back to 24 hour electricity and Tuscany mini-breaks.


Wind farmer developers - white hats, Huzzah,drinks all round


Nuclear Energy - black hats, global conspiracy by capitalits etc.


We've a choice and neither's easy.

Well, it is the claim by many


But no, on your main point I agree. Some big, hard choices ahead. But I'm not too keen on the easy comparisons you make either. It's not that I think wind power people = lovely, and nuclear power = Bad Men!


And generalising about Guardian readers (again!) and putting words in their mouth still hacks me off. So to be clear, my starting point is this:


Regardless of the impending shortage of fossil fuels, I think nuclear is a no-go for the simple reason that we can't handle it. We just can't. I like the ingenuity of it I like much of the thinking behind it, but we aren't able to safely produce it and I do believe we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction by going down that road. However well intentioned


So, what are the alternatives. None viable really - not yet. But as we still have the intelligence and sufficient (I'm hoping) energy to research further (and big strides have been made in recent decades) alternatives I would rather we did that

And by "going down that road" I pretty much mean The Road (Cormac McCarthy)


No-one wants to give up any of the things you mention but it's all pointless having them for 20 years only to find out we've poisoned everything


I know my position is open to accusations of fear-mongering etc, but it really is the equivalent of betting the whole house...

How many people have been killed by Nuclear Energy? How many people have been damaged by it? PLEASE NOTE genuine question not an argument. If we could then look at these figures plus think about the 40 years we've had Nuclear Energy. Then look at rates of improvement in technology and delivery as Hugenot says RE the car are we just to dismiss it? It seems pure Luddism to completley dismiss this when Global warming may have a catastrophic effect within this century - and to be frank much of the 'lefts' response to any mention of it feels like a hangover from the 60s OHh Nuclear Energy BAD. Remember that generation used to gleefully wander around chanting "Mao, Mao, Mao tse Tung".


PS I meant Guardian column writers rather than readers, so apologies a crappy generalisation...but to some of us The Guardian is a Daily Mail of sorts in a far more 'right on' way naturally.

I'm quite uncomfortable with the ongoing reference to newspapers and left v right debate. Historically there has been a bit of that but for you to keep referring to it suggests you are the one clinging on to the past not me. Let's have the "Guardian = The Mail" debate elsewhere...


How many people have been killed by nuclear energy? Not many as far as I can tell... Is that the sole question?


Believe me, I want an easy, safe, clean option. If nuclear is it, count me in. But to buy into it at the moment appears to me to be like listening to financial advisers in 2004 telling me not to worry about financial bubbles. "Economic luddites" is a phrase I remember


But if you are insisting there is no/little risk, and that a few dozen deaths are comparable to any other industry then who am I to argue.


Radiation levels? Cancer increases?


The completion date for the confinement structure for Chernobyl is years behind date - scheduled for 2012 at time of writing. This is a project to limit the damage of a plant that went wrong in 1986. This suggests wilful neglect on a massive scale... a lot of people for many years going "the risks are tiny, tiny"... "whats that? oh..."


And I am meant to believe that things have progressed? I have an open mind but I have yet to see anything to convince me that the rewards outweigh the risks on nuclear

WHO figures on deaths from Chernobyl .....reported in The Guardian


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine




Chernobyl was 23 bleedin years ago, using a nuclear technology that was considered highly dangerous in the west even then and, of course, was functioning under the madness of a command economy...run by the state with no checks and balances. France gets over 60% of its electricity from nuclear power and many other countries have pretty high levels, some risk, yes, catastophic risk? Well, not convinced, and given that our climate is likely to take us to catastrophic levels in about 100 years, if not earlier, then we maybe can take those risks. We should certainly lbre brave enough to look at them without the shrill mantra of "Chernobyl, Chernobyl" every time nuclear power is bought up.


By the way, Google deaths from mining in say just China last year and then come back on dangerous nuclear power.


To dismiss it as a solution to the the massive dangers of global warming is Luddism pure and simple.


PS the media argument is ridiculous - and a place for elsewhere - but if Guardian readers are really so uncomfortable with criticism of the paper I suggest we lose say references to neocons, Fox and The Daily Mail which are banded round as 'givens' of stupidity fairly readily on here. Or don't the rules work both ways?...as you know I think that Fox and The Daily Mail are both full of idiocy but is The Guardian sacrosanct?

But why still persist with death rates when I have already said that isn't my main concern (at the moment)


And comparing death rates in Chinese Mines is as useful as comparing death rates from car accidents and terrorism - it's not pertinent to the argument


Yes France is merrily building and using nuclear power stations and to date there is no problem - no argument there. BUt are you genuinely satisfied with what's happening with the waste? You don't think that's going to be a jack-in-the-box surprise for someone down the line? And if everyone piles in and goes nuclear at the same levels as the french that's a F*** load more waste no-one knows what to do with. Or am I missing something?


PS the media argument is ridiculous but you're the one the keeps snatching it out of the ether and I merely ask why? And accusations such as "Guardian readers are really so uncomfortable with criticism of the paper" annoy me because I don't recall any defense of the paper - I just said using guardian-readers as lazy shorthand was just that.

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

    • 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 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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