Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was stopped and searched at a train station once, because a police dog got a whiff of my inhaler! It took half hour for them to go through my bag, unfold every little bit of paper in my wallet and all that. Made me very late for an appointment, and their attitude was shite, so yes, I think even innocent people would have a problem with police having this power all the time.


One of my best mates is a Police Officer, and whilst he is a decent, sensible chap, I have met a lot of his colleagues, and a lot of them are just power hungry bullies, plain and simple. That is not to say the whole police force is like that, but it exists, and it's these ones who will be the first to stop and search someone!

ClareC, no you shouldn't be shot down for saying that, because a lot of people feel the same way!!


But the problem is, as you say, when you are repeatedly stopped and searched. I can imagine that it would soon become not just irritating and inconvenient, but humiliating and demeening. And as Keef says, unfortunately a lot of police officers are not in the job for the right reason, and get a kick out of their power. So stop & search is a pretty delicate area.

Normalising Stop and Search for knife crime would mean those powers would then be extended for any other "problem" which comes along. I think Quid's take on the reasons for football hooliganism's reduction is a tad one-dimensional


This report for example has plenty of other factors to take into account


Are there many countries where the state goes down the road of increased police powers to this extent and done well? I can think of a few examples (Germany, Ireland) where it has been a vey bad thing. It brutalises the state


There is a reason knife-carrying (and therefore knife-crime) is more prevelant than in the past. This country, as with America, follows a winner takes all model. The more equality widens the more you will see of it. It really doesn't matter if you or I think "well, it's the individuals choice to carry a knife" - as a society we all have to take responsibility for creating the social conditions which breed this kind of behaviour


I'm not inherently against stop and search - but I wouldn't want to see it promoted as THE CURE. As well as curtailing all of our freedoms, it becomes counter-productive in what it sets out to do

What is it that provokes the Police to stop and search a particular individual, is that the colour, is it the hooded top, is it their age, or something more innocent? I often get stopped and searched when I go to the football or airport - and you know what I'm glad because it means they're checking that people are not carrying a weapon that can cause harm.


If there is a risk of being stopped and searched will that increase or decrease the chance of someone deciding to carry a lethal weapon on the streets? Should we be worried about ruffling the feathers of those the Police consider worthy, rightly or wrongly, of stop and search versus the benefit of saving just one life?


Of course there are scum bags in every walk of life and yes they will also exist in the Police force happy to abuse their powers - but does anyone disagree with the concept of stop and search on our streets? The alternative is treat everyone as an adult and simply place up signs such as, 'Please do not carry knives down Lordship Lane', I wonder which strategy would be more effective....



A very good example of what is wrong with police powers - airport security measures as exist are theatre and only serve to annoy an awful lot of passengers. If you feel reassured by them more fool you but it means the rest of us have to suffer whilst any dedicated terrorist can still efefctively do what they want

I'm not anti police but when walking up Lordship Lane last night I reached the tape and asked the officer if the road was closed off to pedestrians too or if I could walk up the pavement. He said it was all closed and added 'this tape seems to confuse people' in a sarcastic way. I pointed out there was people walking up the other side of the pavement. I have no idea if they were breaking the cordon, or witnesses held inside the cordon or what. Why did he have to behave like such a c0ck to a blameless and polite member of public?

Jamma Wrote:

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

> I'm not anti police but when walking up Lordship

> Lane last night I reached the tape and asked the

> officer if the road was closed off to pedestrians

> too or if I could walk up the pavement. He said it

> was all closed and added 'this tape seems to

> confuse people' in a sarcastic way. I pointed out

> there was people walking up the other side of the

> pavement. I have no idea if they were breaking the

> cordon, or witnesses held inside the cordon or

> what. Why did he have to behave like such a c0ck

> to a blameless and polite member of public?


Surely that crime scene tape was a bit obvious though?

I came home to my old flat near Sydenham station once a year or so ago, and there had been a stabbing, and the victim had managed to get to the station and call for help. My road was closed, and I explained to a senior looking officer, who was very helpful, and said he'd walk me to my door. He then got called away, and when I tried talking to a junior officer, he more or less told me to get lost, so I couldn't get in to my house for hours. I understand the need for all this, but as Jamma says, the attitudes can stink!

Three people stabbed...three arrested...mention of wine being nicked....I think that's about all the real facts actually known. And yet why do I feel crushed by a stampede of hobby horses or suffocated by a raging sandstorm of sweeping generalisations (delete whichever absurd metaphor irritates more).


People who profer the mildest criticism of modern airport "security" measures are asked if they are "anti police"

The poor old Guardian is not only now somewhere between the Anarchists' Cookbook and "Mein Kampf" as loastheome literature but is also a term of abuse.


Weird

What SimonM said


Jimmy why would you infer that?


I am against too much power with the police (only at the turn of the 20th century-ish, have Londoners started to respect the police - before then they were routinely despised) but I am fully in support of the need for a policeforce


But as mentioned on other threads - powers need controls

Keef Wrote:

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

> I was stopped and searched at a train station

> once, because a police dog got a whiff of my

> inhaler! It took half hour for them to go through

> my bag, unfold every little bit of paper in my

> wallet and all that. Made me very late for an

> appointment, and their attitude was shite, so yes,

> I think even innocent people would have a problem

> with police having this power all the time.

>

> One of my best mates is a Police Officer, and

> whilst he is a decent, sensible chap, I have met a

> lot of his colleagues, and a lot of them are just

> power hungry bullies, plain and simple. That is

> not to say the whole police force is like that,

> but it exists, and it's these ones who will be the

> first to stop and search someone!



From what I saw in Paris those who were being stopped and searched appeared fairly comfortable almost used to having it happen to them.

The Police officers were relaxed and pleasant and smiled two carried out the stop and search and another with a dog stood back and watched it was the same format each time.

Those being stopped were asked for identity cards and their bags were searched a metal detector was passed over them. The same process each time without anyone taking any real notice.


I havn?t see a stop and search in London for years so have no idea what the format is.



One Day in Paris and I know exactly how they do it.




Pretty much says it all "

Without wishing to put words in his mouth, Sean (and a few others on here inc. myself) are probably more anti-authoritarian than anti-police per se.


The idea that a tougher and tougher law&order programme can solve everything from anti-social behaviour to murder seems overly simplistic. This isn't Guardianista, liberal-pinko wishy-washy, give-them-all-a-hug advocacy - merely a feeling that there are deeper issues at the root of this that police brutality, stop-and-search, capital punishment et al do not solve by themselves (or in some cases, at all).


No-one is pro-crime or pro-criminal (at least not that I've seen) but the ultra-hardline responses that some have posited as an answer to modern social issues I find occasionally frightening.

jimmy two times Wrote:

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

> I think the gang thing is overblown. How does one

> define a gang? In theory any 4 lads together could

> be classified as a 'gang'. Young men carrying

> knives is nothing new. Back in the fifties and

> sixties the fashionable weapon of choice was a

> cuth-throat razor which assailants used to 'slash'

> faces. In the seventies and eighties it was

> Stanley knives. I'm not sure why the so-called

> well meaning Liberals are to blame for letting

> this happen? The only people responsible are the

> knife wielders. No one has forced them to carry

> and use a knife no matter what hardships they've

> suffered in their upbringing. The justice dished

> out to them should be suitably harsh.



If there is a fashion element to this, i.e. what is the cool weapon of choice; then perhaps we could get some role models to start to tool up with those straight potato peelers or something comparatively innocuous. If everyone followed suit coz it was the cool thing, then we might have a few scrapings and occasional gouging but no real stabbings. I mean if we can't get rid of knives completely, perhaps we should aim for harm reduction? Just a thought.

citizenED Wrote:

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

> No, if the likes of theBeard were in power we'd be

> in a far more dangerous and scary place. He sees

> the world in terms of them and us, when the world

> is actually a many-faceted place.



No I don?t!

I believe in a fair and balanced society and Freedom.


Freedom from fear and oppression, from aggressive youth + adults + police + government + neighbours + all of ?them? who over step reasonable levels of behaviour.


Others would have it that we should have the Freedom to carry a knife and walk our streets without worry of being caught.


UPSIDE DOWN freedom.


Freedom is a funny thing.

Just look at the democratic Freedom Iranians have. Hysterical?


Exactly how much MORE dangerous can it get?


As I said in an earlier post these kids will look for different prey in a few years.


We all need to fight for our Freedom from FEAR? and Aggression


The opportunity of GOOD? EDUCATION HOUSING and FAMILY for ALL = a Decent Society.


I won?t be guided by our Ayatollahs.


I?m no FASCIST.


Just a Practical REALIST.

You are no realist TB, just OTT


When you ask




You would have us believe that the world 10 years ago was a nirvana. Jaysus how would you react if some of the events of the 60s, 70s, and 80s had happened. Suss laws, riots on the streets


In many many ways things are much much better today. Precisely because of the freedoms we now have


There are some things which are worse and which need addressing


You say




and who could argue with that. But we don't have that do we? If you are born into the wrong family your chances of achieving anything plummet dramatically. Someone has to do do 3 cleaning jobs to pay the rent and that could be you if you are unlucky. And that's before you reach your teenage years. It must be very tempting to a badly brought up kid to look at the positives hanging with a bad lot if he sees so much failure around him


That doesn't mean I'm giving anyone a free pass to commit crime - I'm just saying phrases like "fighting FEAR and AGGRESSION" is just so much posturing. It don't work - if you can show me anywhere in the world or time where it did or does work I am open for conversion

As I've said before, football hooliganism was virtually eliminated by highly illiberal police tactics...


I'd heard, on reasonably good authority, that mass football hooliganism largely died out in the late 80s because of the sudden fondness for consumption of ecstasy of a Saturday afternoon. Fans couldn't be buggered to batter seven bells out of each other. They'd rather hug.


Not woof.

Lived here 20 years and something seems to be going badly wrong with our society and area - decades of child centric chickens coming home to roost - time for me to move back to Asia - where I kid (pardon the pun) you not children are both a delight and well behaved - no tantrums in supermarkets or school bus madnesses.

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...