Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> Lou. You can?t speak for most leave voters but if

> you were representative and most voters thought

> like you themnit goes some way to explaining why

> remainers say you didn?t know what you?re were

> voting for - because that?s literally what you are

> saying

>

> You can?t just cry liberal London elite at

> everything you don?t like. The governments own

> internal papers paint a very very very bad picture

> (of a country that lest we forget, lost it?s shit

> when kfc ran out of chicken)

>

> You continue to wave everything away just so you

> can say in the future ?but no one was talking

> about that then?. You will back up any half arsed

> Hitler/eu garbage but faced with actual reality

> and probability of. I deal, you don?t examine your

> record in this and think ?maybe I, Louisa, don?t

> know what I?m talking about sometimes?


John I have never once claimed to know everything. But on this, my record is exemplary. I know what I?m talking about. I want us to remain, for all the reasons you and others have stated. But I do feel you and other remainers are perpetuating this idea that the world as we know it will come crashing down around us post October 31 without a deal. The evidence just isn?t there to back up your claims. We will end up on WTO terms and probably sink into a small recession until the economy readjusted to new conditions. It wouldn?t be ideal, but equally it wouldn?t be total chaos either.


I appreciate your concerns for Ireland, Scotland and the continuity of the status quo, but much of that comes from your own entrenched belief system and is simply NOT based in reality. Sorry to say.


Louisa.

Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> prepared to put people through this for decades?

>

> People will die. Be it because of resumption of

> the troubles. Or food/medicine shortages

>

> And you won?t even be embarrassed? You should be

> prosecuted


Hahaha. You really make me laugh. No, people dieing doesn't make me laugh. Statements like the above really do though.


I don't know how you can even attempt to claim balanced judgement with comments like this one. Best of luck to you though.

Loutwo Wrote:

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

We will end up on WTO terms and

> probably sink into a small recession until the

> economy readjusted to new conditions. It wouldn?t

> be ideal, but equally it wouldn?t be total chaos

> either.

>


Please tell me what you think 'WTO terms' are Louisa, and who operates on them?

Thanks. Asking for the UK.

I can make statements like that because I pointed you to available evidence, which does forecast these things, and said if they come true it would be bad


And you basically said yeah but it?s worth it


I?m not misrepresenting you. I said if it was wrong I would be embarrassed. You said if you were wrong about these forecasts you wouldn?t even be embarrassed.

TheCat Wrote:

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

> Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> -----

> > prepared to put people through this for

> decades?

> >

> > People will die. Be it because of resumption

> of

> > the troubles. Or food/medicine shortages

> >

> > And you won?t

>

> Hahaha. You really make me laugh. No, people

> dieing doesn't make me laugh. Statements like the

> above really do though.

>

> I don't know how you can even attempt to claim

> balanced judgement with comments like this one.

> Best of luck to you though.


Do you have any friends or relatives on long term medication at all TheCat? If so, what are their views on this?

government reports, a wide array of economic forecasts, views of other countries - not conjecture Lou


It might comfort you to chuckle into your wine and pretend you know better. But as you learned yourself - you know jack on this and you got it wrong before. If I were you I would think maybe you are wrong again


Government reports. Supposedly ?worst case scenario?. But shouldn?t even be possible


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/uk-leaked-no-deal-brexit-plan-operation-yellowhammer-4771216-Aug2019/%3famp=1

Or is the body responsible for delivering foods just ?conjecture? as well?


Are they likely to know more about how food gets to our table? Or do you know more?


https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/goves-claim-fresh-food-supplies-unaffected-by-no-deal-brexit-categorically-untrue_uk_5d6bb55ce4b0cdfe05719d77

Loutwo Wrote:

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

> There really are some genuinely well respected

> posters on here, people who often make good

> balanced arguments, turning into complete doom

> mongers over this issue. Not even based in fact,

> pure conjecture. Very odd indeed.

>

> Louisa.


Ah. What things 'not based in fact' have been said recently that you object to Louisa?

Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> prepared to put people through this for decades?

>

> People will die. Be it because of resumption of

> the troubles. Or food/medicine shortages

>

> And you won?t even be embarrassed? You should be

> prosecuted


This remainer hysteria is getting out of hand. You?ll make yourselves poorly with these made up scare stories. I suggest a nice cup of cocoa and an early night. A good night?s sleep works wonders.

Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> Or is the body responsible for delivering foods

> just ?conjecture? as well?

>

> Are they likely to know more about how food gets

> to our table? Or do you know more?

>

> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/goves-claim

> -fresh-food-supplies-unaffected-by-no-deal-brexit-

> categorically-untrue_uk_5d6bb55ce4b0cdfe05719d77


I think there must be people who have all their lives longed to say 'The British Retail Association?! Don't talk to me about the British Retail Association! What do they know about British Retail?!'. That's the only explanation I can come up with.


This made me chuckle.


Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> Loutwo Wrote:

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

> We will end up on WTO terms and

> > probably sink into a small recession until the

> > economy readjusted to new conditions. It

> wouldn?t

> > be ideal, but equally it wouldn?t be total

> chaos

> > either.

> >

>

> Please tell me what you think 'WTO terms' are

> Louisa, and who operates on them?

> Thanks. Asking for the UK.



Well for a start, if we fall back on our existing membership of the WTO the Irish border issue disappears overnight. We will pursue a independent trade policy and ?go rogue? by keeping the border open to free trade whether the WTO/EU likes it or not. Current forecasts suggest they would have little room to complain or impose further tariffs until at least 2022, by which time new trade agreements would already be finalised with other countries. I think some food will entail 0% tariffs initially, and some goods such as cars will be closer to 10%.


Louisa.

Keano. You can join thecat


Read what I said at 9:46


I had only pointed out what would happen if predictions came true. I said if they didn?t come true I would be embarrassed. But if they do some true then I won?t be making anything up


If those predictions (including governments own) come true. People. Will. Die


And if you response to that is ?I won?t even be embarrassed? then yes you are a sociopath

Louisa. I see a couple of issues there.


Firstly. No country in the world currently trades on WTO terms alone. There's a reason for that.


Secondly, that wouldn't work on the Irish border. See attached. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/checks-on-both-sides-of-irish-border-mandatory-under-no-deal-brexit

The WTO has no mechanism for expelling members based on them making an exception for a open border into a existing single market, none whatsoever. And do you really think the EU will force us to have a border on the island of Ireland going against the Good Friday Agreement, therefore threatening peace and stability in Northern Ireland? It just won?t happen. They will tolerate a open border for a number of years whilst we sort trade arrangements out. We all know this. And it?s not sticking two fingers up to anyone, it?s making the best of a not so ideal situation.


Louisa.

Even if the eu was to tolerate an open border it?s the uk that?s having the hissy fit about control of its borders


Eu citizens can freely flow into the uk across this non existent border and what? The media and leavers won?t mind?


Seems like a ridiculous risk and price to pay for zero gain and a lot of loss

But Louisa, you were saying that the UK, under WTO terms, would decide to unilaterally drop all tariffs on the Irish Border. No it wouldn't. That would kill our own farming industry. Even if we didn't care about breaking the rules of an organisation (the WTO) in which Brexiters claim they wish to play a leading role in future.

Jenny, on Ireland, there is no mechanism to prevent or fine the United Kingdom from not imposing tariffs on goods between us and the single market. None which would take affect before 2022, as I previously explained. It?s a fantasy.


We would not be exclusively trading on WTO rules, we already have existing trade agreements and others in the pipeline about to be signed separately from the EU. And again, we will continue to keep a free and open border with the single market with 0% tariffs.. whether the EU/WTO like it or not. Simple as that really.


Louisa.

Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> As for lou?s WTO fantasies, what can you even say?

> She has the f@@@ing GALL to say we are making

> stuff up and she comes out with this nonsense.

> Where does she get such ideas? Where?



Your rage is really becoming comical/farcical. Please carry on.


I'll just say this. Louisa said that many statements being made were not 'based in fact'.


A forecast or prediction is NOT, repeat NOT, fact.

A) Louisa and her posts have very little to do with facts


B) no one is say predictions are the same as facts. What I am saying is that the serious predictions about the consequences of a damaging Brexit are not random plucks out of the air but based upon people whose job it is to know. This doesn?t mean they will happen. They could very well be wrong. But as already discussed the consequences of them being right v wrong are very different

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...