Jump to content

Recommended Posts

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> El Presidente Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all

> ED

> > businesses that don't pay the so called LLW?

> The

> > skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could

> > completely wipe out all the good little

> businesses

> > in ED and feel really great about ourselves

> > because we're such ethical consumers!

>

> You always need to start somewhere and once a

> prominent local business starts paying LLW, others

> will feel pressured to follow.

>

> And Picturehouse is a long long way from being a

> small independent local business.


Well why not start with the businesses James B say's aren't paying their staff? Or failing that, the ones that only pay the minimum wage? Why choose one that is paying over ?2 an hour above the minimum wage for a low skilled job.

James Barber Wrote:

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

If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon would snap the lease up

So I don't see a risk of this boycott in

us losing such a valuable local resource.



Gawd help us. The most amazing cinema possibly to be replaced by Curzon and the local Councillor seems ok with that prospect.

There is a huge amount of capital expenditure in the opening of any cinema. I doff my hat to Picturehouse in the risk taken in creating such a wonderful space and no doubt a good place to be employed.


I'm intending to ask the staff how they feel about their employment there the next time I'm in there, although I understand that they may feel conflicted.

As someone else suggested, tipping helps significantly.

Of course only people who use the cinema can tip, those who don't cant and those who boycott cant either.

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > El Presidente Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all

> > ED

> > > businesses that don't pay the so called LLW?

> > The

> > > skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could

> > > completely wipe out all the good little

> > businesses

> > > in ED and feel really great about ourselves

> > > because we're such ethical consumers!

> >

> > You always need to start somewhere and once a

> > prominent local business starts paying LLW,

> others

> > will feel pressured to follow.

> >

> > And Picturehouse is a long long way from being

> a

> > small independent local business.

>

> Well why not start with the businesses James B

> say's aren't paying their staff? Or failing that,

> the ones that only pay the minimum wage? Why

> choose one that is paying over ?2 an hour above

> the minimum wage for a low skilled job.



I'm not boycotting picturehouse as I don't use it in the first place- but not for those reasons. However; I see no reason for people not to boycott it for that reason. Yes, if someone wants to list the businesses James is talking about, perhaps people could boycott those too.


I guess another reason for doing it is because a high profile protest against one of their other cinemas led to some action.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> "Ideally everyone would be in receipt of the LLW.

> "

>

> Erm, wouldn't that just cause rampant inflation,

> pushing up the cost of living beyond the so-called

> LLW?


Why? Aldi pays the London Living Wage yet has the cheapest prices. Paying the Living Wage isn't just about businesses coughing up, there are all manner of benefits such as decreased absenteeism, greater employee loyalty etc which help offset the cost rises.


Pleased to see some supporters of the LW on here at last! Those saying Picturehouse isn't the worst offender, no it isn't (though its employment practices are pretty bad, 80% of staff on zero hours contract, no sick pay in first year, sick pay only after eight days' absence after that) but that shouldn't stop its employees for asking for fair pay. It's a useful flagship case, as it's a perceived luxury brand charging top prices whilst still not paying the LLW.


The argument that it will cost business more could be used to argue against any form of ethical consumerism - as certain people above clearly would.

Cost push inflation is just one aspect of it but you are right, it is sometimes (not always) off set by an increase in productivity. However, more money in the system also causes demand pull inflation. If everybody suddenly has more to spend and an imbalance between demand and supply occurs, pushing up prices.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon would

> snap the lease up

> So I don't see a risk of this boycott in

> us losing such a valuable local resource.

>

>

> Gawd help us. The most amazing cinema possibly to

> be replaced by Curzon and the local Councillor

> seems ok with that prospect.

> There is a huge amount of capital expenditure in

> the opening of any cinema. I doff my hat to

> Picturehouse in the risk taken in creating such a

> wonderful space and no doubt a good place to be

> employed.

>

> I'm intending to ask the staff how they feel about

> their employment there the next time I'm in there,

> although I understand that they may feel

> conflicted.

> As someone else suggested, tipping helps

> significantly.

> Of course only people who use the cinema can tip,

> those who don't cant and those who boycott cant

> either.


Crikey. I had missed this spectacularly ill informed complacency from James Barber.


I despair sometimes. We have this great local facility paying way, way above minimum wage and people are calling for a boycott. And let's just flag the elephant in the room here. Cinema jobs are easy. You spend half your time watching movies, the other half selling snacks. Getting bored of watching the same movie is as tough as it gets. There are much tougher gigs on LL paying way less.


Vacuous virtue signalling at it's worst.

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> Is that right?!


Yep - well actually it looks more like five years. The "Peckham Levels" thing is only temporary, after that, the council plan to demolish it. However - five years is a long time, and I dare say there is still potential to save the building.


http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Multi-Storey_Car_Park


But these new Council plans are just on a temporary basis. They say they are just for the next five years before the site is up for redevelopment. This means demolishing the cinema part of the building as well as the car park parts now showing their significant potential.

We should ALL be careful about how we spend our money - and buy from companies we support.


There's nothing wrong with withdrawing your support from a company at all.


In fact it's the only language companies speak - Money/ Profit/ Customers.


Look at SportsDirect. Starbucks. etc etc etc.


And then look at the choices you make and what they are based on.

If it's purely convenience, then it's a bit shallow.

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

> > James Barber Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon

> would

> > snap the lease up

> > So I don't see a risk of this boycott in

> > us losing such a valuable local resource.

> >

> >

> > Gawd help us. The most amazing cinema possibly

> to

> > be replaced by Curzon and the local Councillor

> > seems ok with that prospect.

> > There is a huge amount of capital expenditure

> in

> > the opening of any cinema. I doff my hat to

> > Picturehouse in the risk taken in creating such

> a

> > wonderful space and no doubt a good place to be

> > employed.

> >

> > I'm intending to ask the staff how they feel

> about

> > their employment there the next time I'm in

> there,

> > although I understand that they may feel

> > conflicted.

> > As someone else suggested, tipping helps

> > significantly.

> > Of course only people who use the cinema can

> tip,

> > those who don't cant and those who boycott cant

> > either.

>

> Crikey. I had missed this spectacularly ill

> informed complacency from James Barber.

>

> I despair sometimes. We have this great local

> facility paying way, way above minimum wage and

> people are calling for a boycott. And let's just

> flag the elephant in the room here. Cinema jobs

> are easy. You spend half your time watching

> movies, the other half selling snacks. Getting

> bored of watching the same movie is as tough as it

> gets. There are much tougher gigs on LL paying way

> less.

>

> Vacuous virtue signalling at it's worst.



There are probably easier gigs paying less too.


Your point is like saying don't send your money to the RSPB because Barnados do more worthwhile work.


Where do you draw the line? Do you only support the most needy charity or spend your whole time trying to find the company that pays the very least to the people that do the hardest work and only boycott them?


What about the profit margins or the size of the company. Picturehouse are part of a multi-national behemoth.

El Presidente Wrote:

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

Cinema jobs

> are easy. You spend half your time watching

> movies, the other half selling snacks. Getting

> bored of watching the same movie is as tough as it

> gets.


You really are an idiot, you know that? I worked in a cinema as a student, jobs included dealing with drunk, violent and ill customers, cleaning up the mess left in the auditorium, which could include used condoms, syringes, vomit etc, cleaning the lavatories - even worse - etc etc - and that was in a posh university town! Most of the time you only got to watch movies in time off as on the job the whole time was spent rushing around. Your attitude that people doing shit jobs (mainly cleaning up after the likes of you) deserve shit wages is utterly reprehensible.

I find it quite interesting that plenty of people feel qualified to make a whole bunch of judgments about the Picturehouse (or more accurately Cineworld), from the health of its P&L to the overall quality of its employment terms, without any obvious measurement scale, experience, or comparison exercise, for example. It seems to me that if you are going to have a view it's either a simple personal, essentially impressionistic one - does ?9 odd per hour feel like exploitation wages for this job? - or it's a proper analytical one, which takes a bit of work. Otherwise you just have a shouting match (which may be what everyone wants but is a bit tedious).


Mick makes the point about capital investment - worth carrying out a bit of a thought experiment. If PH want to open another cinema, it will have to be financed one way or another from profits. All other things being equal, increased payroll costs = lower profits = reduced likelihood of opening another cinema. So if PH pay their existing staff more it is at the expense of nominal future staff who would have got jobs in the new cinema. those nominal future staff may be happy with ?9 odd per hour, but now they never get the chance.


I accept that this is a simplified scenario but it's a lot closer to how business actually operates than most of the stuff o this thread.

that is such a 'management' answer -


'We can't pay you more because we wouldn't be able to make any money and then we won't be able to expand and employ more staff - how selfish of you to not consider the people we cannot afford to employ if we give you a decent salary'.

DaveR Wrote:

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

> I find it quite interesting that plenty of people

> feel qualified to make a whole bunch of judgments

> about the Picturehouse (or more accurately

> Cineworld), from the health of its P&L to the

> overall quality of its employment terms, without

> any obvious measurement scale, experience, or

> comparison exercise, for example. It seems to me

> that if you are going to have a view it's either a

> simple personal, essentially impressionistic one -

> does ?9 odd per hour feel like exploitation wages

> for this job? - or it's a proper analytical one,

> which takes a bit of work. Otherwise you just

> have a shouting match (which may be what everyone

> wants but is a bit tedious).

>

> Mick makes the point about capital investment -

> worth carrying out a bit of a thought experiment.

> If PH want to open another cinema, it will have to

> be financed one way or another from profits. All

> other things being equal, increased payroll costs

> = lower profits = reduced likelihood of opening

> another cinema. So if PH pay their existing staff

> more it is at the expense of nominal future staff

> who would have got jobs in the new cinema. those

> nominal future staff may be happy with ?9 odd per

> hour, but now they never get the chance.

>

> I accept that this is a simplified scenario but

> it's a lot closer to how business actually

> operates than most of the stuff o this thread.



To me that just suggests that we'll pay people rubbish now, so we can open another cinema, make bigger profits and pay more people rubbish in the future.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> that is such a 'management' answer -

>

> 'We can't pay you more because we wouldn't be able

> to make any money and then we won't be able to

> expand and employ more staff - how selfish of you

> to not consider the people we cannot afford to

> employ if we give you a decent salary'.



Well, yes and no.


If you want to expand, and don't want to borrow money to do so, then presumably you do face a choice between expenditure on existing facilities and staff, and spending money to expand (thus providing more jobs).


I'm not saying that's what Cineworld are doing, but the point isn't without merit.

Well, yes, and as has been pointed out Aldi pay LWW, and it's pretty obvious they trim costs by trimming 'the frills'. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's a choice they've made.


But Picturehouse is full of fringe benefits that other cinemas don't offer (and not everyone wants), all of which has to be paid for. You can increase profits by either charging more or spending less - it really is that simple - and as I don't think Cineworld will be able to cut costs that make the 'Picturehouse experience' what it is, then where else do they find them from? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't know a lot about that industry and I'm simply unsure how they would go about doing it.

Let's all move to Cuba where the binmen get the same wages as the surgeons!

What worries me most about the labour market and keeping costs down is the health and safety aspect of it in London where the world and his wife are all trying to take your pennies- food premises, tattoo parlours and the like cutting corners to maximise profits. In fact a relative who is a fully qualified electrician and has no choice but to charge the going rate as he has 2 kids and a mortgage and has to pay to renew his certification regularly was asked to certificate 5 houses by a property developer who had paid ?25 PER DAY to so-called electricians. Only 2 houses were safe....

Just out of interest- which fringe benefits do people feel they offer other than a bar/cafe, which I assume pays for itself?



I used to use Brixton Ritzy reasonably regularly (was a member for three or four years) but stopped because an evening ticket that cost three times as much as a peckham plex ticket was impossible to justify.


The technology (screen, sound etc) is no better...as far as I can tell.


The seats really aren't discernibly more comfortable. I'm 6' 4" and have never noticed more or less legroom at either cinema. I've never once left PP uncomfortable from the seat.


It's certainly no cleaner than Peckham Plex. In fact I think this and the claims about seating are largely imagined and absolutely not noticeable. Perhaps people think they should be better/cleaner than PP, so project that?


The choice of films, at Brixton anyway, are possibly slightly more diverse and maybe they have the odd independent film more than PP, but certainly not at ED where there's much less choice.


The decoration is nicer in the Picturehouse cinemas, but that's so far down the list of priorities for me sitting in the dark watching a film. Peckham Plex is a little (and only a little) shabby around the edges, but again, so what?


Is it the little free film guides/brochures they produce?




I'd love to know how a ticket price costing 3 times more can be justified for offering more or less the same service (that's an extraordinary discrepancy when you think about it- what other industries that offer essentially the same service get away with that?.......pharmaceuticals is the only one i can think of...Nurofen vs budget ibuprofen etc.........happy to be put right on that)?

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The technology (screen, sound etc) is no

> > better...as far as I can tell.

>

> I'm a fan of the plex, but IMO the picture quality

> isn't great.



I really don't know to be honest. I'm not looking out for it, but i've never noticed a difference. And, even if there is, it's not enough that I notice and therefore have it bother me.


The only time i've noticed a cinema picture quality difference is using the newest IMAX in Leicester Square at the Empire, where they have lazer 3D. That really is something. But is also ?20+.

I don't mind PeckhamPlex, but it is often filled with, well you know - riff raff.

Probably because the tickets are so cheap I expect.

I mean, I knew people like that existed obviously (I do watch documentaries you know), just hadn't seen it with my own eyes before going there.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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