Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Agreed - lots of people doing lots of tweaks can help but very few think further. Lots of children, a pet or two, all kinds of consumption - this is the excess that lots of folk won?t budge on, even though rejecting them en masse would do more than reusing plastic bags and recycling, etc.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Agreed - lots of people doing lots of tweaks can

> help but very few think further. Lots of children,

> a pet or two, all kinds of consumption - this is

> the excess that lots of folk won?t budge on, even

> though rejecting them en masse would do more than

> reusing plastic bags and recycling, etc.


Agree - there's plenty we can all do individually and at a community level. And plenty of local/ small projects and initiatives that can show those in power some real solutions. But without real structural change around energy supply and demand and living more sustainably in general- which requires governmental, business, cultural and international change - I think we're going to hell on a handcart.


(Happy Saturday all!)


HP

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Mabaker Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Well Rockets, guess you didn't agree with the

> > suffragettes then. If it wasn't for groups like

> XR

> > and all those pressure groups that went

> before,the

> > problems of climate change would be well down

> > Government's "to do" list.

>

> ANother way of helping would be to ditch your pet,

> your car, have only one child, etc. etc. but that

> is seen as maybe too radical, yet we have folk on

> here saying how much like the like and support the

> (very radical, at least in terms of intervention

> and direct action) XR. So, which one of you will

> do any of the above to really follow through on

> your flask-of-hot-tea boosterism?



Small individual acts may make the people concerned feel better, but in relation to actually addressing the causes of climate change, they are a drop in the ocean.

What is meant by ditching pets? I feel reasonably sure this is not a call for mass abandonment or euthanasia but just want to be clear.


I suspect fuel poverty and the unravelling energy crisis is more likely to cause a shift in behaviour than any amount of direct action.

Assume ditching pets was meant to be a trite comment. Certainly will piss off all the rescues who work so hard to pick up the pieces when people really do ditch their pets/ don't neuter them and then have unwanted litters.


HP

I agree with firstmate that the current crisis is the likeliest way of effecting behaviour change, I?m in ?back to the 70s? mode myself. I?m not planning to get a pet after the existing one, and fortunately have one child so no issues there!

Should this thread now be moved to the lounge as its no longer ED specific ?


In relation to XRs actions, they are now in their 4th year, instead of causing disruption over that period, some of them could have completed degrees in physics, chemistry, biology and electronics and then taken research jobs in industries looking at reaching net zero and helped us all achieve that goal rather than expecting governments on their own or peoples assembly to be able to solve the problem.

Brains not brawn is the real way forward.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I agree with firstmate that the current crisis is

> the likeliest way of effecting behaviour change,

> I?m in ?back to the 70s? mode myself. I?m not

> planning to get a pet after the existing one, and

> fortunately have one child so no issues there!


Thirded re back to the 70s mode. The Good Life huh.

Have 3 cats - but all street strays I've rescued, neutered etc. 2 teenagers - can't really ditch them. Never had a car. Haven't flown (except once for work) since 2004. A mix of personal ethos and not being well off in my case.


HP

Waseley Wrote:

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

> Yes but we can breed less, drive less and travel

> less. A bit of a defeatest post. In a generation'

> time your grandkids will ask where were you when

> we could have tackled climate change?


They won?t because I have chosen not to have kids. Not giving up my flying though :-)


Haven?t as yet seen anyone camping on the rye, unless they only stay at night and pack up for the day?

Depressing to read the attitude to climate change protest here. People have spent decades playing nicey nicey and nothing has changed for the better, it?s just got worse and worse. The planet is in crisis and drastic action is needed. But no, let?s get our knickers in a twist about a few tents on the Rye.


Those who are wondering why the council is ?allowing? it? They?ve presumably sensibly realised that applying to court for an eviction notice and engaging bailiffs to carry out the eviction isn?t particularly cost effective when it?s a peaceful encampment that will move on in two weeks. If there is any anti-social behaviour then it wil be for the police to move them on, not the council.

They are not there because they fancy a few days in Peckham Rye, they are there to muster from other parts of the country before "bringing London to a grinding halt" with illegal protests and disruption. You're basically greenwashing anarchists...just look up their founders' comments on subjects like the Holocaust and rape. Another one of their founders admits to driving a diesel car....go figure........not a group I would want to be associated with.

My understanding is that the Common is common land so can't be stopped from camping and that they have porto loos.

XR wda thought pretty obvious want more wind turbines and building insulation.

Wdnt a Peoples Assembly allow for the above to happen if enuf peeps wanted them to?

A slight aside but for that reason I do not understand how common land can be licensed for private use by the council ( Gala festival.


gabys1st Wrote:

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

> My understanding is that the Common is common land

> so can't be stopped from camping and that they

> have porto loos.

> XR wda thought pretty obvious want more wind

> turbines and building insulation.

> Wdnt a Peoples Assembly allow for the above to

> happen if enuf peeps wanted them to?

This year, due to flood alleviation works, Gala Festival will be taking place on the Common north of the cafe.


The Common was purchased by the Camberwell Vestry when the Lord of the Manor threatened to sell it for building. This ownership has passed to Southwark Council over the different forms of local government. I for one am very grateful the Vestry took this action, imagine the Common built over with tiny houses. However, after this purchase took place ancient common rights no longer applied.


For clarity this sets out the rights on common land from the Government website https://www.gov.uk/common-land-village-greens.


"You cannot:


camp on common land without the owner?s permission

light a fire or have a barbecue

hold a festival or other event without permission

drive across it without permission unless you have the right to access your property"


Southwark are in effect turning a blind eye which in my opinion is the right thing to do. The campsite is taking up a very small space on the Rye and I don't see how it can impede residents' enjoyment of the common.

That?s maybe so but XR is a movement - political and social - so a precedent has been set and the council may find itself accused of bias or at least naivety. XR ought to pay and enter into an agreement with Southwark to guarantee mess, damage etc.will be accounted for at the very least.
The council has been accused of SO many things that anything more is likely to be water off a duck?s back. The Council?s letter states ?XR has given a number of assurances in relation to noise, behaviour and leaving the park as they find it? and at this stage we really can?t prejudge the outcome. Would a formal agreement really make any difference?
In the past few years my wife and I have been on quite a few marches - anti war, anti brexit , pro NHS etc. All were done with many thousands of fellow marchers and all done in good spirits. We booed outside Downing St. to protest against Bush on his London visit and cheered when a Brexit vote went against the goverment while were in Parliament Square. Did any of these marches have the slighest effect on the powers to be. NO. Britain still invaded Iraq, and Afganistan and left the EU and what mistakes they have turned out to be. If only Tony, George or Boris had asked us two for advice! Extinction Rebellion want to bring London to a standstill, something the IRA failed to do during their campaigns or indeed, the Luftwaffe. I've no doubt a lot have genuine and worthwhile intentions and in many ways we support them, but I think they would have more effect if they blocked Westminster, for example, and prevented the people in power from going about their daily work, but causing a few local traffic problems annoys a small number of people and wastes police time. But any lasting effect - NO.

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> The council has been accused of SO many things

> that anything more is likely to be water off a

> duck?s back. The Council?s letter states ?XR has

> given a number of assurances in relation to noise,

> behaviour and leaving the park as they find it?

> and at this stage we really can?t prejudge the

> outcome. Would a formal agreement really make any

> difference?


How is that turning a blind eye going for the council....? This is what turning a blind eye enables....


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-61057845


For goodness sake even the Green party says it is counter productive.......this is the lunatic fringe being empowered by people who somehow think their cause is honourable....when the Green party says it has become counter productive you know they are doing long-term harm to the issue.

Pondering this,

I?m not sure who exactly the council would have an agreement with. XR prides itself in being a decentralised organisation and if you look at their website they have some sort of arrangement with a company that acts as their ?fiscal host?, presumably so they can have a bank account, crowdfunder etc. although it does say that XR Global Support has a contractual arrangement with the fiscal host which suggests it is a legal entity in its own right.

Mr/Mrs Rockets, do watch to the Caroline Lucas interview, reasonably reflected in the article. She was broadly supportive of XR, reflecting the frustration over lack of substantial action to tackle the climate emergency. This thread has debated both pro and con XR and had some great debate.

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...