Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Brendan, you know I adore you, but you're being a bit of a prick here. Calm down, apologise, then teach us.


Just because we didn't grow up there doesn't mean we can't have a perspective, even if it's misinformed or seen through colonial spectacles.


You have a captive audience, treat us gently and with respect - we will respond.

Brendan, I appreciate you have strong feelings on this subject and, like PGC, I think you're a really terrific guy, but there's no need to be high handed.


I for one am interested in any Fianna Fail comparison, which I think is what prompted Mic Mac to start this thread, because I've watched the changing fortunes of Adams/McGuinness over the years, as many of us have. I would prefer this thread not to turn into a shouting match.

I don't mind when people I'm not bovvered about behave like knobs for no real reason but it's disheartening when people I do like do it.


So I can't really be arsed.


Hopefully the the thread can continue in a useful manner.. presumably so long as nobody who isn't in possession of 100% of the facts and a South African passport dares to offer any words on the matter.


Good luck.

Yeah sorry Brum, PGC, Giggirl if I?ve offended you. I was by no means saying that someone?s nationality precludes them from having an opinion or indeed being capable of an informed opinion. I was specifically saying that using the perspective of your life and what goes on around you to form an opinion on something happening halfway across the world is silly at best and downright insulting at worst. *bob*?s specific snide tone when doing so just anoyed me no end. Even though I suspect that when it comes down to it we probably share the same feelings on the matter.


If you look back through the post I posted a reply to Mick?s original question of why Mandela is held in such high esteem in SA.


I wouldn?t for a moment try to comment on how it would apply to N Ireland though as I don?t know the people or the situation.

Serious topics can exist in the lounge btw. The drawing room was created for people who wanted to start a topic without the desire to have every other post be some flippant, crude remark. I think Mick mac prefers the lounge because if the volume if traffic. It's up to him where this thread sits


Brendan is passionate about this and fair play to him. But instinctively I'm with Mick on this (at a broad level anyway)


however much at war or aggrieved one party is, does killing and maiming innocent people ever have enough reason. Not that that question should be limited to Mandela, Adams or mcguinnes obviously. But how these events and stories are consumed and through what filters largely dictates our acceptance of them

Brendan Wrote:

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


> Have you ever had to flee a township where you were

> doing charity work and caught the stench of

> someone being necklaced on the wind?



Brendan, I have no idea at all but if it had happened to me I would probably wake up screaming about it for the rest of my life and would probably be really intolerent towards anyone giving an opinion I thought was half baked.

Well it?s less to do with shit like that (which you expect to deal with when you get yourself into situations like that and shouldn't be used as an excuse for bad behaviour) and more to do with people forming opinions, about a place a people that I feel protective over, based on fundamental misunderstandings and dubious information.
Wow....the only cliche not (yet?) resuscitated is that one about black South Africans being "like children really, not capable of running the country". That was a South African favourite back in the 1970's, although not one used by my college tutor, who had been forced to leave SA after being imprisoned there for anti-partheid campaigning...

Getting back to Mick?s original point on why Mandela is universally seen as a hero despite his involvement in the armed struggle. I think it is because the guy was willing (along with people like Buthelezi and De Klerk) and strong enough to seize a moment, that may never have come again, to leave the past behind and make a positive future rather than settle old scores.


He quite literally saved a country from self destructing.


Furthermore after the fact he kept his nose out the trough which distinguished him from other African leaders of the time.


Here?s some overly sentimental guff I wrote about him over a year ago.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,140009,140009#msg-140009


So I suppose the question with N Ireland is, do its leaders, regardless of their past, have the will and leadership to take things forward to a degree where angry cynics like myself will gush over their efforts?

Simon, You actually don?t know what the @#$%& you?re talking about.


Perhaps you could go and explain to the parents of the 6 year old girl in my class who was blown to pieces in a Saturday morning bomb in the Wimpy back in ?84 that they shouldn?t be so upset as she was really just an electricity pylon.



This comment is absurd at so many levels as far as Mandela is concerned, and I would just have let it if pass, had it not been for


But unless you actually know what you are talking about or have a proper perspective on South Africa its history and peoples* rather just keep quiet.


I suppose, as ways of crushing dissent South Arican-style go, being bullied to silence simply for holding a different view, from a different perspective, on an a cossetted internet forum is preferable then to "clumsily fall" from a high window in Police HQ like Steve Biko did. (A cheap shot I know, but I did not drag this down into the gutter)


A "proper perspective"? What could that possibly be I wonder??


Originally I was trying to address terms like "criminal" and "terrorist". Mandela was a criminal in the way the American revolutionaries and the French Resistance were "criminal". It may seem obvious, but a "criminal" is someone who breaks a law, and laws are made by governments. But where the "government" is demonstrably a minority, white supremacist, repugnant and generally anathma to the *civilised* world the term "criminal" becomes largely irrelevant.


Noy quite sure what you mean by that Simon
.


Why does this not surprise me?


To understand why Mandela is admired and respected, for one thing you only just to need to look at the "statesmen" who have lined up with him on the world stage over the decades - both Bushes, Thatcher, Blair, Mugabe, Gaddafi etc etc...Rightly or wrongly these and others all seem to ooze with self-serving hypocrisy of various types and degrees. None of them "suffered" in prison for their beliefs and on largely trumped-up charges...


edited to correct a really really stupid error!

Mandela is universally seen as a hero despite his involvement in the armed struggle. I think it is because the guy was willing (along with people like Buthelezi and De Klerk) and strong enough to seize a moment, that may never have come again, to leave the past behind and make a positive future rather than settle old scores.


I think that is a very noble statement Brendan.


I would suggest that De Klerk was the person making the big step. The ANC, Mandela and the world in general may have made the De Klerk step a seamingly unavoidable one, but many a leader would have held out for another decade or more before reconciling.


Mandela led the movement out of oppression and the ANC and its terrorist/military wing attracted the world's attention to the shortcomings in south africa. Black Africa made a very big sacrifice. But also at the end of the day, the guy in control needs to make a big concession and risk losing his political future, De Klerk did this.


In northern ireland terms DeKlerk would be David Trimble - who I admire trmendously - he took the big step in northern ireland of speaking to terrorists - he was the first to do so and a lot of the current reconciliation in NI has to do with him. John Hume put Trimble and Adams together to sort out their differences. All three are to be admired.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> I would suggest that De Klerk was the person

> making the big step. The ANC, Mandela and the

> world in general may have made the De Klerk step a

> seamingly unavoidable one, but many a leader would

> have held out for another decade or more before

> reconciling.

>

> Mandela led the movement out of oppression and the

> ANC and its terrorist/military wing attracted the

> world's attention to the shortcomings in south

> africa. Black Africa made a very big sacrifice.

> But also at the end of the day, the guy in control

> needs to make a big concession and risk losing his

> political future, De Klerk did this.


Interesting point Mick (If I can go off topic) and I suppose it is why De Klerk is also seen in a positive light even though, like Mandela, he was head of an organisation that had an armed wing that was busy killing people at the time.


While I don?t think his hand was forced completely the alternatives all involved more military and more violence. Apart from the obvious pressure domestically from organisations like the ANC and (what would have then been) ?white? opposition parties there was also a growing lack of will in general amongst the population to continue with a nasty, bloody war that was always bubbling under the surface. It had been a couple of generations and the reason it was put in place in the first place were less and less relevant.


The cold war had also recently ended and America no longer needed SA to supply the minerals for its weapons and fight communism in Africa so that particular rug of support had also been pulled out from under them.


So I think De Klerk?s choice at the time was a very sensible one as well as brave.


I was still a teenager when this was going on but that was the feeling I got.

steveo Wrote:

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

> Apparently, BOSS used to employ the Richardsons to

> do some of their dirty work in London, in return

> for allowing the brothers to smuggle diamonds out

> of SA inside frozen fish (according to London

> Babylon)


Secret agents and gangsters. Ok now I have to read it.

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...