Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So we close all out Steel Works and buy Steel from China... (also kerb stones)


We have China investing in our Nuclear program.


David Cameron wants to do more deals with China despite China's record on human rights..

China is also an ally to North Korea who is threatening the West and especially the UK with Nuclear Weapons..


Don't worry Dave knows what he is doing..


DulwichFox

???? Wrote:

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

> as a fan of google foxy I am surprised you didn't

> google "Range of North Korea's Nuclear Missiles"

> to back up your assertion that North Korea is

> especially threatening the UK with its Nuclear

> Weapons or are you just talking out of your ars*?


Kim Jong-un has stated his intention to attack the West and the UK.

Whether he currently could or ever would is another matter.

I don't know the range of his missiles and Western powers are not sure so Googling would be futile.


Certainly China's weapons could reach most parts of the Globe, and that was the point of my post.

That being, why we are trading with a country who is an ally of North Korea..?


Sometimes More Wisdom comes out of some peoples ar**s than other peoples mouths..


DF.

>

> Kim Jong-un has stated his intention to attack the

> West and the UK.


Well, actually South Korea, Japan and the USA are the targets he repeatedly threatens. If you can provide a link to any direct threat to strike the UK I would be interested to see it.


> Whether he currently could or ever would is

> another matter.


Not if he wants to avoid North Korea being turned into a radioactive wasteland, and he knows it. It's all about leverage for sanctions being lifted and aid being sent to them. Dictators tend to want to preserve themselves and their reign more than anything, the latest in the succession being no exception.


> I don't know the range of his missiles and Western

> powers are not sure so Googling would be futile.


Actually that's not true - we have a fairly good idea of how far they can reach. Using purely conventional weapons they can flatten Seoul in minutes, cause havoc to the rest of the country and seriously threaten Japan. Past that is highly debatable, as they have very little luck with test launches of weapons such as the Taepong Do 2 which has a theoretical range of 6,000km.This is before we get to targeting capability and warhead miniaturisation (not much point sending a conventional warhead 6,000km). This indicates that they likely do not have the capability to launch on the US West Coast. They almost certainly can't hit Europe.

That said, there are dissenting voices, such as the Admiral running US Northern Command who reckons they can, but like so much reporting surrounding North Korean capability it's hard to separate rhetoric being used as part of diplomatic manoeuvring from hard fact.


http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/north-korea/delivery-systems/




>

> Certainly China's weapons could reach most parts

> of the Globe, and that was the point of my post.


Actually that wasn't clear but fair enough. Yes, China have far greater capability,so do Russia, America, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and of course us. If we chose not to do business with those who possess nuclear weapons then it'd be tricky.

But if you think they're a military 'ally' of North Korea then you need to read between the lines. China is only obligated to go to war in support of them if they are attacked. If North Korea shoots first China won't do a damn thing to help them, beyond preventing North Korea becoming what it would see as an American ally right on it's border, which it won't tolerate. China doesn't want the massive refugee crisis which would result from North Korea losing a shooting war (and it would lose - the reason South Korean forces are under US command is as much to do with stopping them heading north to settle scores as anything else, plus after the initial terrible onslaught North Korea's supply train would be annihilated).




> That being, why we are trading with a country who

> is an ally of North Korea..?


In short, China is only an ally of North Korea because they don't want a Western leaning state on their border. The moment young Kim starts looking like he's actually going to start some shit on the peninsular the Chinese will reign him in, by force if necessary.

There are many arguments to be made for and against trade with China, but linking them to North Korea like this is naive at best.


>

> Sometimes More Wisdom comes out of some peoples

> ar**s than other peoples mouths..

>

> DF.


Indeed. There's a lot more to the situation on the Korean peninsula than your simplistic (I'm sorry but they are) points indicate. The situation with China and the West is scarily complex, and (personal opinion) anyone who says we're all too economically entangled to let things get bad needs to read some history.


Long time lurker, first time poster etc...

Has North Korea implimented a sugar tax


Or a Kebab edict


Foxy, can you do your usual google trawl and copy and paste the info


TBH, I can't be bothered


Are the Chinese going to hide a war head in all our/their reactors ?


What's the best chinese takeaway


Do 'they' drink beer, eat on LSL


I'll try and think of someotherrandom kark

dogcatdog Wrote:

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

> so lets look at this

>

> you are perhaps 80/85% sure as to what the

> probable response would be

>

> I am probabaly 75% sure what your follow up would

> be to any comment I make.

>

> and so it goes

>

> Do we really want to get into this ?

>

> Say what you want and we will leave it at that


I think you might be implying that their engineering/science isn't up to much, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think that may have been true 20 years ago, but not any more.

>

> I think you might be implying that their

> engineering/science isn't up to much, but I don't

> want to put words in your mouth. I think that may

> have been true 20 years ago, but not any more.



Yes and no. They have made massive strides in engineering, but their nuclear submarines are still so unsafe that crews can get a lifetime dose of radiation in one six month cruise. Makes me glad it's not a Chinese built reactor we're getting, if that information is correct.

Sure, and that's a clearly reasoned standpoint, and in this instance perhaps the right one. The attitude to health and safety is still very different, but that will come with time and money.


Meanwhile, they're being brought in to build roads, mines, civic infrastructure all over Eastern Europe, Africa etc. winning contracts that would have previously gone to American or European firms. Part of that is down to the fact that Chinese firms will often lend money cheaply for the projects they're running, but regardless of the financial motivations, it's fair to say they're becoming an exporter of knowledge.

I agree with all of that. It goes to show how the Chinese truly understand long term thinking. They do things now which will benefit China long after the current leadership is gone, whereas most Western govts do things to benefit themselves straight away.


China has a lot of problems, but an inability to think ahead isn't one of them.

Western governments are short-termist because the electorate are short-termist, i.e what can you do for ME now, rather what can you do for the country long term. It's been that way for the last 30 years.


Whatever the rights and wrongs of nuclear power, the reality is that a state owned French company is building this, with Chinese money and we will pay double the market rate for the energy it produces. However did we get into a place where we can not build things for ourselves anymore, where other nations profit from our essential needs at double the cost to us, the people?


Finally, when a nation causes a collapse in steel prices by illegally dumping subsidised steel, you don't reward them with contracts to build things like HS2. We are more than capable of building our own nuclear reactor or HS2, but of course, we have a government in power that doesn't believe in national borrowing for anything, yet wants us all to borrow to buy houses!

Joeleg wrote



I agree with all of that. It goes to show how the Chinese truly understand long term thinking. They do things now which will benefit China long after the current leadership is gone, whereas most Western govts do things to benefit themselves straight away.


China has a lot of problems, but an inability to think ahead isn't one of them.


also agree Dave and his minions cannot cast the first stone at Russia and their policy?s when he is quite happy to sleep with the Chinese.

This is true. UK politics works on 5 year cycles so they just plan for gaining the most votes in the next 5 years -re-bloody- diculous. Also the chinese nuclear deal includes a proviso that WE will make it financially viable for them..i.e. if they make a loss on the reactor and the electricity then the tax payer of the UK will make up the short fall. Ian Hislop referred to this as a bribe....

Was going to add do any of you know anything about nuclear power and the energy markets?


Then I saw blahblah's post which suggests that at least one of you does.


Concept of nuclear generation aint a bad one but we screwed up


(a) in the late 60s for not standardising the design

(b) in the 80s for Thatcher not following through standardising the design, doing an about turn, the dash for gas, privitisation and the subsequent loss of nuclear generation and loss of 40 years of British engineering, innovation, research and expertise.


So we have wasted our North Sea gas burning it for electricity, with the carbon emissions that has led to and now quite happy to buy it in from any country, be they nice or not so nice (fortunately we are plugged into the Norweigian fields one way or another).


Nuclear aint eveyone's cup of tea but friggin short termism, the spread into the labour administration, has manisfested itself in loss of energy security and dependence on others.


Nuclear isn't everyone's cup of tea but at the same time 10,000 were involved in developing and delivering this source of energy just next door other British scientists were at the forefront of renewables. CEGB was a monolith, but it represented some form of national energy policy. We had a Department of Energy.


Yes the link to nucler weapons was rather close, and Smellyfield had its problems. But what a bloody waste, as Ian Dury may have said.

Nah, it was a technotopian dream. Nuclear is safer than most anti-nuclear greens imagine, but nowhere in the world does it happen without substantial public subsidies. It will never be 'too cheap to meter', as was also promised in the days when men in white coats were trusted and admired.

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...