Jump to content

Recommended Posts

These people are pretty harmless though. To put it in perspective, I?ve seen some truly horrendous things done in Africa because of superstition or ?traditional religion?. This type of thing has at least been distilled out of Christianity over the millennia. The worst they?re going to do is tell you that you are going to hell, not actually send you there at the behest of some ju-ju peddler.

I'll stand next to you on the 17:19 tonight loudly proclaiming the urgent need for us all to partake in donkey (or donkeyess) buggery lest our immortal donkey buggering souls be damned shall I?

That'll be fun for everyone, or perhaps I'm not a selfish arsehole who actually has consideration for my fellow man (or woman).

Brendan, may I refer you to Piers's post as to why it's not harmless fun....


....anti-social behaviour almost by definition is harmless. No one gets physically (or even mentally) hurt but it's still bloody rude and well, not cricket is it? And uninvited religious preaching to a captive audience in a confined space seems pretty anti-social to me.


Edit: the one above his last one.

Preaching on a bus, so they can intimidate innocent people - who cannot escape - with their absurd views... that's pretty low in my book!


I'd much rather be the middle class white male tutting away, than a raving lunatic shouting at normal people on a bus, and generally making everyone's journey unpleasant.


Actually, I'd rather be on the train instead.

SeanMG - this site has some info on bloodless surgery.


I thought they must be nuts to refuse blood in surgery but after seeing some of the evidence (not neccessarily on the site I posted) it turned out that other fluid replacement and methods of boosting and conserving your own blood are actually safer and lead to shorter recovery times too. Even tho I don't agree that blood should be refused on a biblical basis, i would say I was a JW just to get the better option of bloodless surgery.

And what the hell is wrong with the middle class tut, which obviously is a nasty laughable affectation of the effete, unlike the laudable down to earth tut of the salt of the earth working class...and how the feck did THIS become about class.?!?!?!..Keef, you have much to answer for, were you flaming perchance?

I had an interesting chat with three of them whilst waiting for the bus at the Elephant one day. I stood nearby lamenting the tag team evangelical ear bashing they were dishing out. I made it clear I was unimpressed, I mean, I don't stand about shouting at them that they need stuff I'm into, so I thought I'd mock them. Gently.


I got bored and my ears were hurting so I moved away, just a few metres towards my stop.


Then three 16 year old god fearing morons decided that I needed to hear the word. I supose that my behaviour probably showed me up to be crying out for salvation. Anyhow, their line of attack went a bit like "you're a fool if you don't believe in god". I pointed out that they were in no way able to judge fairly if I was a fool having never met me before. This elicited the same response, "you need god, he's there for you" etc. They weren't listening which, in that situation, was my job.


I got on the 176 wishing that they were right, that hell does exist, but that it is where they're headed for being such drab pains in the arse.


ap

On a kind of related note I can't wait for the election, maybe sooner than we think as the government realises the economy is up the creek for years to come, when, for the first time since 1997, we are likely to see some Labour canvassers on our doorstep. I'm preparing my 3 questions already...one based on weapons of mass destruction, one on No more boom and bust and one wild card.......
and how the feck did THIS become about class.?!?!?!..Keef, you have much to answer for, were you flaming perchance?


I don't believe in class, I've stated that loads of times ;-)


And then look at the things you call Gillian McKeith - who are you or anyone to say she is nuts for example? I might well be wrong about beliefs out of thin air, but I'm consistent...


Now hang on. I never said she was nuts! I just said she was a nasty cnut, and I stand by that!


RE: The people on the bus thing, I honestly don't see it as a problem like you guys do, and would much rather that on a public bus than answer my door, of my home to a stranger who wants to preach to me.


Train, different thing altogether, rules out the window, everything on a train is anti social in my opinio.


I encountered a bus 'preacher' on the day after the London bombs asking if we were prepared to meet our maker, that she was prepared to meet her maker. People were genuinely terrified by her, what gives her the right, her god given righteousness presumably, because of course she is doing the right thing in the eyes of her evangelical god, so it can't be wrong can it.


Believe you me she very nearly met her maker there and then ?$*(%&"$(%$ Bitch!!


Well out of line Keef. Though in all fairness some kids with phone speakers have been dangerously close to their makers too!!



Not sure if you mean for mentioning bus preachers (which the rest of the post was about), or saying that Sean's attitude made me want to punch him on the nose (which I'd already apologised for and edited)?


And why can we disagree about lots of things but it's only religion that makes you want to punch me on the nose?


We disagree about things and debate our respective sides. When it comes to religion, I just find your tone gets a bit smug, maybe I'm wrong, but is just how I read it, and it has gotten my back up in the past, so I guess I may be reading in to things things that are not there...

jumpinjackflash Wrote:

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

> At least they were '3 God fearing 16 year old

> morons' and not three mindless hooded thugs who

> tried to mug you. I know who I'd rather be

> standing at the bus stop with.


That is true, but given the choice I'd rather be standing next to 3 NORMAL kids.


And there's not necessarily a correlation between a religious upbringing and juvenile thuggery. In fact, two of the biggest thugs when I was at school were from a strict religious family! It's up to parents to teach their children what's right and wrong, and more importantly to teach them how to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, through experience, observation and empathy. Not to take a dubious ancient text as some sort of twisted moral guide.


Sorry, going off on a tangent again...

OH GOD


What did I start with this discussion ???


However on the Preaching at Bus stops bit, about 9 years ago at the Elephant waiting for a no 12 home there were the Gospal Singers all there singing and a dancing and a preaching and at the end they gave the Microphone to the Italian with a speech impediment who proclaimed at the top of his voice


"The wages of sin is deaf"


Pith the deaf people is all I say !!!

The values put forward in the New Testament (well, the Gospels) are a pretty good basis for ethical behaviour, in my opinion. Most of the Old Testament is pretty frightening reading, hard to live by and you'd wonder why you'd want to.


As for the preaching on buses... I'm a bit torn. I can see why if you genuinely believe that a person can only have their soul saved by becoming a Christian (or whatever your religious flavour is) then you have a very strong moral imperative to preach. Christians are basically supposed to be evangelical for that reason, although it makes me a bit uncomfortable. For me, it's about manners and intelligence. If someone stood up on a bus and was charming and articulate, then it would make my ride more interesting. I can see that it would annoy other people, though.


There's absolutely no excuse for haranguing, lecturing, patronising, threatening, or tediously droning on for Jesus. And anyone who disagrees with me will get a jolly good smack and a finger-wagging, so there.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Unsurprisingly I'm with Sean on this one.

>

> I couldn't give two hoots who believes what as

> long as it doesn't intefere with my life or cause

> ill towards others.


Unfortunately in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses it does cause ill to others - they would rather refuse a blood transfusion for their sick child than let them have a life saving transfusion. I'm all for adults to make that choice for themselves if they really want to (although if they have dependants I would be less supportive) but to make that choice on behalf of your child makes my blood boil.


I used to live next door to a Jehovah's Witness family, and they were very nice people and we got on well despite our religious differences (I was raised Catholic, though no churchgoer these days), but I really didn't like that aspect of their belief.


Particularly because I asked some who knocked on our door them to show me the evidence from the bible for the belief, and the passages they showed me were clearly all about eating kosher meat, not blood transfusions. They'd just read it too literally.


Couldn't fault them for dedication to their beliefs though. And always polite when they came calling, despite the fact as a teenager I used to quite enjoy teasing them about their beliefs - e.g. the 144,000 thing - you know, asking how they would feel if they happened to be the 144,001st person to qualify for heaven and end up getting stuck down here with us because they'd run out of space.

> Is anyone else getting annoyed and what techniques

> (apart from the polite no thank you and shutting

> the door) do you use ?


Make eye contact, WIDE eye contact.

Interrupt their first sentence and inform them that although this is SE22 not every f@cker in the postal district is prepared to give the slightest amount of heed to their bollocksing horseshit.

Give a wave of your hand to indicate they should depart hither and yon.


Still on your doorstep?

Throw in a 'cocksucker'.

Should do 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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...