Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just some thoughts on the Red Arrows.


They are a team of highly trained fast jet pilots flying what are essentially display rather than military aircraft.


The displays and extreme flying skills have little military implication and could be likened to the old Field Gun competition of the Royal Tournament days (sadly no more). They can be admired on the basis of skill, daring and sheer exuberance bringing joy to those watching - and not taken as an arrogant display of military might / reflection of an oppressive imperial history. There are very few countries in the world that can claim to have always been the "good guys" - so if the Red Arrows display team flies across your horizon - why not chill and enjoy the show, not seek some post modernist meaning in it.

Marmora Man


Your post is spot on - as far as it goes. I certainly wouldn't get that bothered if it happened tonight. Even if I had managed to get to sleep and they woke me up!


The bigger question is (as an intelligent person like you well knows), given their role in raising funds for British defence/invasion, would the wider world (which is the audience for the Olympics) share such a benign view, given current world events?


It's entirely possible to hold a position which cares not a jot for the rest of the world, but I would suggest that would make the holder of such a view less than ideal Olympic-decision-Making material

hang on, if it's because they're military aren't javelins based on er, javelins, weapons of war used by the Romans? I say let's not be reminded of the barbaric and imperialist days of the Roman Empire either, I mean, what did they ever do for us?


Other war related events include, the Marathon, rifle shooting, wrestling, fencing and maybe beach volleyball.


Personally I like the Red Arrows but otherwise get the Red Bull aerobatic team to do it, they wouldn't make people think of war and destruction as they do loops the loops and make the Olympic rings in the sky. But then again the Red Arra's have never made me think of that. Until now.

Red Arrows fly umarmed training aircraft. OK - ignore that one it is very weak I admit.


In the world at large there is a somewhat trying tendency toward historical revisionism that would have us be ashamed of Britains past.


We have a various times done beastly things to most of the people's of the world. WE have either enslaved them, killed them and nicked their lands, wealth and bits of interesting architecture - much of which is in the British Museum.


Guilty as charged, or at least my Great Grandparents were, but actually, not me.


I happen to be quite proud of the British Military, they get given shitty jobs to do by deeply cynical politicians who do not give them the resources that they need to do the job properly.


The Olympics is an international event - with a British flavour in 2012, no doubt 2008 will have a Chinese flavour. The Red Arrows do represent the British military tradition and so the should perform.


A bunch of small red planes trailing red, white and blue smoke is hardly a cassus bellae.

I have to say I'm with in the MP gang on this one.

Everybody likes aeroplanes with brightly coloured trails.

There is such a thing as too much sensitivity sometimes, especially if noone has actually complained.


Of course anyone in Indonesia with first hand experience of those 'trainer' hawks we sold them is probably dead, so no worries there ;)

Mark Wrote:

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

> OK, but how many people in Iraq have died from a

> Red Arrows fly past?


none i presume, but if there was a u.s. version of the re arrows i,d hate to think of the consequences of a fly past.collateral damage,friendly fire!!!!!

All your arguments are valid Michael but not for this argument. This is not about what this nation thinks of itself and the atrocities that have been committed in its name (some of which aren?t all that long ago I might add) but about being polite to the guests you are playing host to for these games.


All those things that the native Britons have so magnanimously come to terms with still run very close to the bone in some parts of the world. (I might just add I?m not trying to have a go at the British with this statement. I?m a white South African so christ knows I know what it is like to be guilty by association)


Personally I like military displays of all sorts and religiously watch the Edinburgh Tattoo. I just don?t think that the military should have anything to do with the Olympics.


The military is a machine to propagate war and therefore everything associated with it is no matter how you dress it up. The Olympics is a competition held in the spirit of peace.

The British military are as much a part of Britain as cricket and warm beer. I think part of a wider problem is that most people in the UK have no contact with the military and so perceive it as an "alien" entity that does bad things.


The core role of the military now is to keep the peace, either through deterent or intervention. Its the politicians that put them in unpleasent and unpopular situations.


So, if the Red Arrows shouldnt be at the Olympcis because they represent war, then neither should the people who send them to war - the Politcians. Who, no doubt, will be there is spades.

I know the Red Arrows are part of the RAF, but I'm sure that's because they're the best around.

I never thought of the displays as overtly military, they just happen to use the military designed equipment to hand.

It's not really in the same spirit as the Soviet may day parades is it.


If it was was a drive past of tanks then fair enough, but I'm sure it's more to do with pretty smoke trails and impressive aerobatics.

Maybe, as someone suggested, we get the Red Bull people instead, it's just they're not as good.

But if it's reallllly so bad I can do without, in fact I don't think I'll be watching it anyway, the only enjoyable opening ceremony moment was Diana Ross' kick in the World Cup (which I think SMG mentioned. Ooh, do his initials make him overtly military? ;-))

cover blown!


I'm really not that bothered myself - although I could see how some other countries might be.


It was the tone of the original petition/email and it's motivations (NOT Anna's post) which really got my goat (see also that petrol prices one some months back)


Even if other countries are pressurising Britain into what can and can't be done, before we start to give out about it, keep in mind the pressure many countries (UK included) put on Korea re: dogs on menus when they were hosting the 88 Olympics and 2002 World Cup

Bollocks, utter utter bollocks. These Olympics don't take place for another five years. A few planes that never take part in battle showing off their skills and letting off a few plumes of smoke. How f**king sensitive to you have to be. "Oh crikey this is going upset a few people isn't it dear. It just might remind everyone of how beastly we were in the war." Like f**k it will. Bunch of namby pambys the lot of you.

I get your point completely but it is not about what people from this country think of the military. It is about what the guests that are being invited here think about it. It wouldn?t be very good form to invite them here with a ?this is our country and if you don?t like it you can fuckoff? attitude.


It just has to do with tact. You don?t go waving your willy in other people?s faces even if the fact that they are offended by it is just like sooo completely unreasonable.

The Red Arrows are an amazing aerial display team though I'm not sure how effective they'll be if your sitting in a sports stadium. There are also safety issues to consider as you can't do stunts over spectators. When you watch them at an airshow they normally cross over etc above the runway and well away from the crowd. When they do flypasts over London there is a minimum height they can fly at and if cloud cover is low then the flight is canceled.


You can't ignore the fact that they are in someway symbolic of the military even though they are one of the things that puts the G8 in GB. Perhaps we can have a Fish Battering and Chip frying display instead.

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...