Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I got that, I was just agreeing with you!


Otta Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > Otta- Ben Carson is his own worry.

>

>

> Indeed, that's what I was getting at. Didn't mean

> to come across as saying he would be a good

> candidate, Thomas sounds like a total arse.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Loved that Independent piece, Otta.

>

> Bill Gates isn't in a position to do anything about "closing up the internet!" And even if he

> was, Trump is little more than a turd on the sole of this shoe.


Gates isn't able to, but the US Government certainly could, since they still control ICANN and so, amongst other things, IP addresses each and every one of the root nameservers. So, in the unlikely event he did get elected president...

He's also recently claimed (in the last 24 hours or so) in defense of his statements that London is so radicalized there are areas of it the police are terrified to enter. Of course, the mayor, Cameron, the MET etc have come out condemning his statements about London as nonsense.

He's making my other favourite slightly left of left field person seem tame by comparison, which is going some


Tyson Fury Gypsy Warrior and heavyweight boxing champion of the world, is only up for BBC Sports Personality of the year.


And he doesn't even want it, though he qualifies by his achievement


Whereas Trump is proving to be a more deluded loon by the day and growing in popularity


😳

Agree with Londonmix - I'm currently living in the US, South Carolina no less, not far from where he was speaking last night. Not one person I know (Republicans included) can stand this man. He gets exactly what he want - a lot of press for saying outlandish and reprehensible things.


He makes my stomach turn.

Trump represents a narrowing wing of the Republican Party, mostly white and older which is afraid of a changing America, scared of Christian values being lost, and fearful of constitutional amendments to repeal the right to gun ownership. If he is on the Republican ticket I have no doubt this will be the first time that a two term Democratic president has left office, to be replaced by another Democrat president. And is it any wonder when people like him are allowed to represent such a broad church of opinions with this narrow firebrand scaremongering attempt at presidential nomination.


Louisa.

Grok Wrote:

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

but he is right about no go areas eg areas in east london in tower hamlets, walthamstow etc, have heard before.


Complete and utter bollocks. Try engaging your brain (assuming you have one) next time you post or are you just trying be controversial?

Prove it wrong then? You cant. Try getting out the pub and actually see whats going on. There sre no go areas everywhere, including southwark. There are estates in peckham that police do not patrol and only go there mob handed if called out. But youre gonna call that bollocks too huh? Get out of the pub!

Grok Wrote:

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

> Prove it wrong then? You cant. Try getting out the

> pub and actually see whats going on. There sre no

> go areas everywhere, including southwark. There

> are estates in peckham that police do not patrol

> and only go there mob handed if called out. But

> youre gonna call that bollocks too huh? Get out of

> the pub!



There's a difference between places where the police will automatically go in large numbers - because they know they'll probably need them - and places where the police are too scared to go in.


You know full well you were trying to suggest that parts of East London are totally off limits to police and white people because they've been turned into completely Islamic areas. Don't make out that you weren't. And all you have to back this up is "have heard before". Not a compelling argument I would suggest.


Segregation is a problem in London, but the police aren't scared to go anywhere; they just make sure they have the resources they feel they need. Donald Trump is talking shite, and you aren't that far behind.

Youre the only one mentioning colour here. If you can read you will see im saying there are no go zones and it includes east london as elsewhere and police do not routinely go there as therevwould be a riotvevery night of thevweek. That imo is a no go zone. Under cover of the no go zones, as you gather nefarious activities carry on unabated previsely because the police do not go there on a regular patrol basis.and it includes all criminality such as those that would engage in extremist activities.

This fact maybe unpallatable to you but so what. Do you really think that you live in a law abiding society with bobbys on every corner stopping every game of knock down ginger before it starts?Did you think it was pure chance and coincidence that hoardes of scummy yoof and gangs appeared out of thin air to roam the streets of london in2011 holding the capital to ransom. No, they had been doingbthis on a regular basis but in smaller doses in such no go areas. The same applys to the criminals that were out on their mopeds etc on halloween, where do you think they pracrice, keep the bikes etc.

And yes, have heard it before, know all types of people and know london. I do not live in an ED village bubble.

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> Grok Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Prove it wrong then? You cant. Try getting out

> the

> > pub and actually see whats going on. There sre

> no

> > go areas everywhere, including southwark. There

> > are estates in peckham that police do not

> patrol

> > and only go there mob handed if called out. But

> > youre gonna call that bollocks too huh? Get out

> of

> > the pub!

>

>

> There's a difference between places where the

> police will automatically go in large numbers -

> because they know they'll probably need them - and

> places where the police are too scared to go in.

>

> You know full well you were trying to suggest that

> parts of East London are totally off limits to

> police and white people because they've been

> turned into completely Islamic areas. Don't make

> out that you weren't. And all you have to back

> this up is "have heard before". Not a compelling

> argument I would suggest.

>

> Segregation is a problem in London, but the police

> aren't scared to go anywhere; they just make sure

> they have the resources they feel they need.

> Donald Trump is talking shite, and you aren't that

> far behind.

You are talking utter nonsense Grok. Name me one place specifically that would lead to a riot if Police go there, go on, just one. And I can't think of any area in Peckham that is a no go zone either. Police on the beat have been replaced by Community Wardens. You will see them everywhere in Peckham. And before this government cut funding, safer neighbourhood Police teams could regularly be seen on estates. They were in fact, a very successful form of beat policing.

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...