Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Whilst not disagreeing with the factual part of your post DPF I wonder what your point is ?


It could be read as "because they are from a specific demographic we dont have to worry to much about policy specifics. Just round em up "


But i hope thats not what you meant. Does it really matter who does it? Surely "why" is more important than "who"?

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> jimmy, wombat, etc... I think you're taking a very

> simplistic view of the situation. No, these kids

> are not being "forced" to carry knives, nobody is

> saying that. But as I said earlier, people are

> products of their environment, nobody is born

> "evil", nobody is born a murderer.

>

> So don't you agree that it could be a good idea to

> take a look at what's happening in their lives,

> try and figure out why kids are turning out like

> this? Or would you prefer we just ignored the root

> cause of the problem?


Absolutely agree that the root causes need to be looked at, but in tandem with appropriate punishments. People know that they will get umpteen opportunities before 'really' being sentenced which translate into a number of (literally) get out of jail free cards.

So what happens is that invariably said offender simply keeps on doing what they want when they want UNTIL they get nicked for something judged important enough to warrant a custodial sentence.

And that's when the bleating begins. And that's what I'm bored of. But that's frequently what gets them off the hook because there are professional apologists out there writing in-depth reports on the effect of social deprivation on these people.

Right and wrong is very easy to understand. Seriously. Why make excuses for people who choose to ignore the difference?

That makes it sound like you consistently tread the path of "right" and studiously avoid that of "wrong" wombat?


I'd be surprised if that was the case as very few of us manage it - many of us can't even agree on what's wrong and what's right half the time


Which isn't to put stabbing people into "the right" category (it can be very hard discussing this for the very reason that people try and misrepresent.. aaanyway)


but one's "right" and "wrong" can be violently challenged by circumstance. I have read many a poster on here say waht they would happily do to perpetrators of violence on their family. Which just goes to show.... given a circumstance anyone can flip and become the aggressor


That doesn't make me an apologist at all - but merely calling people "scum" as some have done on here doesn't really... help. I am as against the people who commit violence as I am those who vote BNP. I can see the warped logic behind the rationale of the people in either case - I just don't accept any of the arguments. But where I do agree with the apologists (and not the people themselves) is that these people (be they black youths with knives or white poor people with racist views) don't come from nowhere. There are reasons..

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> cheap and easy line matthew123 - what does it

> mean?

>

> You make it sound like life is hard for all of us

> but only lazy scum with excuses bother to stab

> people - the rest of us work a bit harder? Surely

> a bit more complicated than that?


No, I was talking about this growing culture of excuses which cultivate an environment in which as a nation we become increasingly soft - people will take the piss. We could spend an eternity searching for a magic pill whilst society becomes irreversibly lawless. People blubbering about how unfair it is to be stopped and searched should not stop this country getting back on track - let's stop being selfish and think about stopping crime not pandering to excuses.

Maybe I do see things 'simplistically' as someone has put it. But in my mind things are very simple. Putting a knife in someone is wrong. There can be no type of upbringing that will enable a mindset to be formed that thinks its right. They know it's wrong when they're doing it.

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> What about if it is in self-defence?

>

> Or defence of one's property?

>

> Or defence of one's family?

>

> Or defence of one's friends?

>

> If you feel that you are likely to be targeted by

> someone who may kill you or others you care about,

> is it ok then to stab someone?


Good God. What a ridiculous response. Clearly it's about context.


And to respond to Sean's post about me treading the line of right and wrong: I'm not perfect, I would hate for anybody to be perfect. But the issues we're talking about here aren't little "ooh, I only tipped 5% for my toasted sandwich" incidents, they're ones where our society has VERY clear views on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. So why pick faults in the terminology. We all (even the apologists) are aware of what is absolutely not permissible in our society as do the people who commit the crimes yet they CHOOSE to ignore the fact.

STOP and SEARCH Poll


(Pity there?s no start a poll option in this forum)



How many stop and searches have you seen in the last 12 months.


A. On Lordship during the day?


B. Anywhere else in East Dulwich during the day?


C. Anywhere else London during the day?


D. Anywhere else in the UK during the day?


E. On a council estate during a Police raid?


F. Following an incident outside Night Club or similar at night.



My answers



A. 0

B. 0

C. 0

D. 0

E. 0

F. 0



The last stop and search I saw was 3-4 years ago in Brixton.


My suspicion is that the Police figures are NOT what we are lead to believe I believe the great majority of stop and searches are in the categories E and F.

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> What about if it is in self-defence?

>

> Or defence of one's property?

>

> Or defence of one's family?

>

> Or defence of one's friends?

>

> If you feel that you are likely to be targeted by

> someone who may kill you or others you care about,

> is it ok then to stab someone?


> Good God. What a ridiculous response. Clearly it's about context.


Is this what you mean by context? If it's you or your loved ones being targeted or threatened then it's ok, but if it's an 'urban' youth being targeted or threatened then they should be strung up or banged up for life?

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What about if it is in self-defence?

> >

> > Or defence of one's property?

> >

> > Or defence of one's family?

> >

> > Or defence of one's friends?

> >

> > If you feel that you are likely to be targeted

> by

> > someone who may kill you or others you care

> about,

> > is it ok then to stab someone?

>

> > Good God. What a ridiculous response. Clearly

> it's about context.

>

> Is this what you mean by context? If it's you or

> your loved ones being targeted or threatened then

> it's ok, but if it's an 'urban' youth being

> targeted or threatened then they should be strung

> up or banged up for life?


No. What I mean by context is someone walking around with a weapon on the streets. If someone comes into my house and threatens my loved ones the law allows for my need for defence. We also put in place a system in this society that allows someone who's being targeted or threatened (your words) to go to the police and ask for assistance.


(I'm leaving this section blank for your inevitable response about these 'urban' youths not feeling able to go to the police. Blah.)


There's the option for all of these people to not put themselves in the situations they put themselves into. Yes, there are the situations where someone who's entirely innocent has no choice but to end up in the wrong place/ time (e.g. Damilola Taylor) but more often that not there are the people who choose to be in a certain place doing what they choose to do.


On one hand it's admirable that you look for the good in these people but on the other hand I feel my sense of society in this country eroding as a result of their actions.

LeagleEaglish I'm sure you are aware of the self defence laws in this country. It is all about reasonable force. To stab someone in self defence not only would you have to be in a position where someone has attacked you with a knife or a gun, but you'd also have to give an explanation of why you had a knife on your person in the first place.
There's the option for all of these people to not put themselves in the situations they put themselves into. Yes, there are the situations where someone who's entirely innocent has no choice but to end up in the wrong place/ time (e.g. Damilola Taylor) but more often that not there are the people who choose to be in a certain place doing what they choose to do.


Wombat, I disagree. You have the option not to put yourself in those situations. You assume that everyone else does too.


I think that any of us who didn't grow up living on an estate where there is a large gang presence can not really understand how young people end up doing things that as an individual they would never do.


The children who go on to join these gangs are scared of what will happen when they get older. Children as young as 9 are seeing close up what is happening and it scares them that they cannot see another way to live. It is all very well for someone who goes home to their comfortable life to tell them that they have choices, but they don't always see that they do.


Some of them get involved young as an insurance policy, others hold out for as long as they can but often turn to the gangs when an older family member has something bad happen to them. A few manage to steer their way through it unscathed. For the children I work with this is their future as they see it. None of them are bad, they are children who are scared to grow up because they have seen what happens when you do. I am not making excuses for any of the violence and nor do I think it should go unpunished. I am pointing out that from our perspective, on the outside, we may not see the whole picture.

Jimmy two times: Yes I did and I haven't stabbed anyone either. But there was not a large gang presence where I grew up. My point was that it is the presence of gangs that provides the climate in which it is more likely to happen.


If you re-read my post I also did not say that anyone who grew up on a council estate is likely to stab someone!

espelli Wrote:


>

> Wombat, I disagree. You have the option not to put

> yourself in those situations. You assume that

> everyone else does too.

>

> I think that any of us who didn't grow up living

> on an estate where there is a large gang presence

> can not really understand how young people end up

> doing things that as an individual they would

> never do.

>

> The children who go on to join these gangs are

> scared of what will happen when they get older.

> Children as young as 9 are seeing close up what is

> happening and it scares them that they cannot see

> another way to live. It is all very well for

> someone who goes home to their comfortable life to

> tell them that they have choices, but they don't

> always see that they do.

>

> Some of them get involved young as an insurance

> policy, others hold out for as long as they can

> but often turn to the gangs when an older family

> member has something bad happen to them. A few

> manage to steer their way through it unscathed.

> For the children I work with this is their future

> as they see it. None of them are bad, they are

> children who are scared to grow up because they

> have seen what happens when you do. I am not

> making excuses for any of the violence and nor do

> I think it should go unpunished. I am pointing out

> that from our perspective, on the outside, we may

> not see the whole picture.


I don't doubt that there's difficulty in being able to fully escape from the reaches of such gangs but there are ways in which they can be avoided and many choose not to follow those ways. Those people are who I'm talking about. The ones who make a conscious decision to go down that path. And there are many. My point is that when they finally face a significant charge in court they bleat the argument that you use and get supported by the many professional apologists. Net result = they get yet another chance.


My point is that there are those who do have little choice, absolutely, yet there are many who fully choose the 'wrong'. And they get comforted with the same blanket argument in court that they're a product of their environment. It's an easy 'out'. And they exploit it to the full.

There is an argument that prosperity for all will fix many of the cultural problems that drive youth crime ... but unfortunately the country is on it's knees (as always seems to be the case) so a different solution is needed.


Stop and search is a good concept, but we have to ask what motivates the Police. Someone mentioned they've seen Stop and Search performed on East Dulwich Road 4 times, well that is the only place I've seen it done and on numerous occasions. It always seemed to be a Dog Van stopping another vehicle, with 5 or 6 officers performing Stop and Search on 1 or 2 occupants. Someone who worked for the Police told me that some Police units have quotas to meet each month in arrests, so often a dog van will cruise the main roads looking for a vehicle they can pull over with a defect (e.g. broken light) with what they believe has people aboard who they can arrest for some other technicality as a result of stop and search.


But I have never seen any youths subjected to stop and search in SE22, even though many of the alleged criminals reported on this forum are often described as youths. Stop & Search needs to be stepped up, even if 100% of people who are stopped and searched for weapons are clean it will still help send a message that crime is being increasingly tackled.

Well, Lenk.. according to which camp you're in:


a) civilization as we know it in Britain has ceased to exist and the only workable remedy is to bring back hanging.


b) group hugs and Clannad piped from loudspeakers on street corners could provide the answer.



Reality and truth, as ever, will be somewhere in the middle. But don't expect to find that on here.

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...