Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The law should apply to everybody and everybody should be equal under the law, is surely the minimum standard that should be applied to any law. I don't see how this can be said, now or in the future, of international law.


The UN cannot enforce international law and so it is routinely ignored. The only weapon in the UN's arsenal appears to be sanctions which punish the people of a country whilst leaving the leadership unaffected thereby achieving nothing. The worst recent case of this is the genocide the UN perpetrated on the people of Iraq for which it will never be held accountable.


All across europe the surrendering of sovereignty to the EU has been extremely divisive why should this process be repeated with the UN, a far more undemocratic institution?


Effects of UN sanctrions on Iraq

I think what you are aspiring for is the evolution towards global values, which is something I doubt mankind will ever achieve.


Certainly not institutionalised in the UN.


Which, and I can tell you this from personal experience, is a very imperfect body.

Interesting reference Santerme, I had to give myself a quick wiki lesson on that. To quote from wikipedia though


"The League never became a closely-managed formal organisation. Assemblies of the Hanseatic towns met irregularly in L?beck for a Hansetag (‘Hanseatic Diet’), from 1356 onwards, but many towns chose not to send representatives and decisions were not binding on individual cities."


I don't take issue with the idea of international cooperation, the treaties and protocols that are a necessary part of that. The UN does obviously do valuable work around the world in some of its many guises. However is the UN a fit body to decide one way or the other on the "legality" of the actions of sovereign states.


Edited to add: If the UN was born out of enlightened self-interest and now you have doubts about its efficacy where do you think its gone wrong?

functionalism will dictate what happens on the different levels. there are issues today that need to be addressed on a global scale: global environment, terrorism blah blah. subsidiarity, the principle by where the most effective strata of government should deal with the problem also explains my thought.


the un and eu were mainly inspired by the horror people felt after the 2 great wars, particularly the eu.


from your opening post i am assuming (maybe incorrectly) that you are against such intercontinental institutions, whether a global 'leviathan' would ever work i don't think you can really ever say. does a local police force enjoy the love of the whole community and never accused of bias? no. so on an international scale the ask is even bigger.


i hope that there is a good future for international law, that the hague court will actually take to task people who break it, including tony and george for the war. but, instinct would tell me that man kind is far too navel gazing to realise how key tackling certain things globally are to our future today. like the ice caps melting etc...


i (pretty naively many would say) still believe in the social contract as prescribed by rousseau and think that politics is no longer a national issue and therefore this principle i would apply internationally. we are global citizens, not just UK. whether the institutions that represent that international cooperation are 'good' and 'right' or respected is another issue. but then, who respects their own parliament? apart from the swiss i know of no one who actually feels like they participate in their democracy....

nashoi Wrote:

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

> Interesting reference Santerme, I had to give

> myself a quick wiki lesson on that. To quote from

> wikipedia though

>

> "The League never became a closely-managed formal

> organisation. Assemblies of the Hanseatic towns

> met irregularly in L?beck for a Hansetag

> (‘Hanseatic Diet’), from 1356 onwards,

> but many towns chose not to send representatives

> and decisions were not binding on individual

> cities."

>

> I don't take issue with the idea of international

> cooperation, the treaties and protocols that are a

> necessary part of that. The UN does obviously do

> valuable work around the world in some of its many

> guises. However is the UN a fit body to decide one

> way or the other on the "legality" of the actions

> of sovereign states.

>

> Edited to add: If the UN was born out of

> enlightened self-interest and now you have doubts

> about its efficacy where do you think its gone

> wrong?


It has an inbuilt failure which is the self interest of those nations who can veto SC Resolutions.


We see this failure in all multi national institutions, NATO, the EU, and even the Commonwealth.


From my perspective I can only relate experiences in my dealings with them on peacekeeping missions.


Certainly the role played by the UN in Bosnia was a complete farce, without going into detail we were not allowed to move Muslim villagers under immediate threat because it would be seen as though we were participating in the ethnic cleansing.


Now we found other ways in many cases but there were times when communities were devastated because we were under too much scrunity from the UN observers and our chain of command forbade us to act.


So there were incidents where you could be kicking round a football with some young children on Monday and removing them from their burned out homes and burying them by Wednesday.


So, I am no fan of weak peacekeeping, you enforce or you go home.


In Kosovo, when there was meant to be co-ordinated action on the bombing of Serb targets by NATO, we had 72 hour debates because the Greeks vetoed targets or the Germans would not attack certain installations.


It was the most ineffective air campaign in history.


In many areas the UN is working well despite obstacles, WHO and UNESCO.


The organs of International Justice should be strenghtened, in my opinion.


I am not sure the UN decides on the legality of war, that is done by the committment of signatory nations to international protocols from the Kellogg-Briand Pact, through the Haig Conventions and the Nuremburg Principles!

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...