Jump to content

"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case


Recommended Posts

Well you probably wouldn't report someone missing if there was still a body about :-S


And actually it's not true to say that their every move was watched afterwards, because they seemed to be constantly going jogging.


Chick - you say that people posting on this thread should hang their heads in shame. I think it is the parents who should be hanging their heads in shame.


Whatever happened to Madeleine, I believe that the following is not in dispute:


The parents left her alone with her younger siblings even after they had been told on a previous night that she had been crying for her father for (I think) over an hour.


They did not cooperate with the police investigation. Mrs McCann refused to answer 48 questions put to her by police. The only one she answered was along the lines of "Do you realise that by not answering these questions you are hindering the search for your daughter?", to which she answered "Yes".


They went against police advise and publicised Madeleine's distinctive eye defect even when told that this would put her in danger because any abductor, on realising Madeleine would be immediately recognisable, would kill her.


Their holiday companion/s attempted to pin Madeleine's disappearance on Robert Murat, a man living near the apartment, hence putting him through hell (I believe that he is currently suing them for their false claims).


They refused to return for a reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared, which could have clarified the various inconsistencies in their statements. As a result, the police still do not have a clear idea of the apparent sequence of events.


They dissed the police who were trying to find out what had happened to their daughter.


They dissed the findings of two separate top British sniffer dogs (yes the DNA etc was too degraded for a conclusive match to be made, but the fact is that both dogs alerted in several places in an apartment from which a child had disappeared and in which nobody else had died, to Madeleine's cuddly toy, and to items of Mrs McCann's clothing)


You can actually see a video of the dogs alerting - I will try to find the link to it.


When the case was shelved, the McCanns could have requested that it be reopened. There was a window of opportunity in which legally they were able to do that. They didn't.


You can read much of the police files online, such as witness statements, though I presume some evidence will have been withheld when the police published the rest. I will try to find the link.


And for those who think I should not have started this thread - what is wrong with a society which criticises someone bringing to people's attention facts to counteract the spin of a paid "spokesman" (Clarence Mitchell), rather than criticising the parents who whatever way you look at it failed their little children?


Here's one link to a site which has a lot of information:


http://www.mccannfiles.com/


Here's a link to videos of the dogs alerting:


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html

Nothing better to focus your energies on....seriously?!?!?!


Why do you care? Is there a personal element? They're family, you were left alone for half an hour as a baby and got scared?

Just let it go.


We can do things about dysentery and malaria; we can try and stop our government killing innocent children in Afghanistan every week. In the scheme of things I'm not sure why we even give this tale a second glance.


Either something tragic happened and they'll feel shit forever, or something tragic happened and they'll feel shit forever. Your self satisfied gloating helps not one single person on this planet.

All of which proves NOTHING.


The McCanns reported Madeleine as missing as soon as they realised she was missing for sure. Nothing unusual in that.


They were under the Police and media spotlight within days if not hours of the reported disappearance. Again nothing unusual in that.


The chidren were checked on regularly by the parents in turn and not left for hours. Those parents genuinely believed their children were safe. The intent is more important than you want to admit (having already decided they killed their own child and covered it up).


Not answering questions that can't be answered or someone is unable to answer does not equate to non co-operation. Assumption by you based on biased blogs and news reports that you have read, as the actual police interviews are not available for public inspection in full, nor will be unless there is a prosecution and court case.


Also I repeat that when people are bereaved or in shock (even if it is laced with guilt) they sometimes do NOT act normally.


I could go on. In reference to the dogs...there is NO conclusive DNA evidence (not even worth mentioning anymore). And if they DID detect the death of someone in the apartment there is NO evidence to link the McCanns to that death (or indeed any conclusive evidence that it was Madeleine's death). It is perfectly possible that a third party WAS involved.


That is the problem with your argument. For everything you list...all of which is just speculation and none of which PROVES anything, there is an equally plausible and equally speculative alternate argument.


On the leaving children unspuervised....millions of parents do that every day. They do it to answer the door, or to take a nap......even. Some even leave their children altogether for others to raise and look after. You have children Sue (you posted you have a grand-child) - did you have your children before your eyes for every day of their first say 13 years of life?


If the McCanns and their friends thought for one moment that leaving their children sleeping in apartments they could clearly see from their dinner table for a couple of hours (whilst taking turns to check on them regularly) would have led to this they would never have done it. They have paid the ultimate price and I think it's very cold hearted of you Sue to keep demonising them for that mistake.

mockney piers Wrote:

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

. Your self satisfied

> gloating helps not one single person on this

> planet.


xxxxxxx


Can you - seriously - point to anywhere where I've been "gloating"? Or "Self-satisfied"?


I'm interested in the case. Full stop.


ETA: DJKQ, instead of stating things as fact, please could you at least check them out first. There are plenty of resources on the internet, in fact I have given some links.


And please remove your reference to my "saying that they killed their child", when if you read my posts properly you will find I have said nothing of the sort. I don't believe for a minute that they killed their child.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> All of which proves NOTHING.

>

> The McCanns reported Madeleine as missing as soon

> as they realised she was missing for sure.



How do you know that?



> They were under the Police and media spotlight

> within days if not hours of the reported

> disappearance. Again nothing unusual in that.



They were under the media spotlight because they courted the press right from the start.


>

> The chidren were checked on regularly by the

> parents in turn and not left for hours.



How do you know that? As they wouldn't return for a reconstruction, there is no way of knowing. And in any case, get your facts right, even the parents didn't claim they were checking them in turn.



Those

> parents genuinely believed their children were

> safe. The intent is more important than you want

> to admit



How do you know what they believed or what their intent was?



(having already decided they killed their

> own child and covered it up).



I have never said that, please read my posts and remove this statement.



>

> Not answering questions that can't be answered or

> someone is unable to answer does not equate to non

> co-operation.



The list of questions asked is in the public domain, why not look them up. They were perfectly straightforward questions.




Assumption by you based on biased

> blogs and news reports that you have read,



No, I have made no assumptions, the police files are in the public domain. One of the things this case has opened my eyes to is the total untrustworthiness of articles and comment in the press.



as the

> actual police interviews are not available for

> public inspection in full, nor will be unless

> there is a prosecution and court case.



You are wrong. They are all available on the internet. The Portuguese system is different. Please get your facts right.



>

> Also I repeat that when people are bereaved or in

> shock (even if it is laced with guilt) they

> sometimes do NOT act normally.

>

> I could go on. In reference to the dogs...there is

> NO conclusive DNA evidence (not even worth

> mentioning anymore).



Have you looked at the videos? Do you think both dogs were wrong? If there had been conclusive DNA evidence there would probably have been arrests by now.


And if they DID detect the

> death of someone in the apartment there is NO

> evidence to link the McCanns to that death (or

> indeed any conclusive evidence that it was

> Madeleine's death). It is perfectly possible that

> a third party WAS involved.


I ask you again, please look at the facts.

>

> That is the problem with your argument. For

> everything you list...all of which is just

> speculation


It is not speculation, please read my posts properly



and none of which PROVES anything,




No, and that is why there have been no arrests


> there is an equally plausible and equally

> speculative alternate argument.



Which is what, and how is it equally plausible?


>

> On the leaving children unspuervised....millions

> of parents do that every day. They do it to answer

> the door, or to take a nap......even.



Most people don't leave their children alone night after night to go out drinking. And most people don't "take a nap" when they are supposed to be looking after three children under four. Do you have any experience of children this age, DJKQ?.


Some even

> leave their children altogether for others to

> raise and look after. You have children Sue (you

> posted you have a grand-child) - did you have your

> children before your eyes for every day of their

> first say 13 years of life?



I never left a child alone and would never ever do so.

>


> If the McCanns and their friends thought for one

> moment that leaving their children sleeping in

> apartments they could clearly see from their

> dinner table



They could not see inside the apartment where a child could be vomiting, choking or falling. And in any case, the apartments could not be "clearly seen" from their dinner table.




for a couple of hours (whilst taking

> turns to check on them regularly)



It is you who is making assumptions, not me. How do you know they were checked on regularly? They have given inconsistent accounts to the police and refused to return for a reconstruction which would clarify these.



would have led

> to this they would never have done it.



How do you know what the McCanns have done or might have done?



They have

> paid the ultimate price and I think it's very cold

> hearted of you Sue to keep demonising them for

> that mistake.



I'm not demonising them. I'm interested in finding out what happened to a little girl. Both my brothers work in child protection - why shouldn't I be interested in trying to find out the truth?

How do you know that?


It's in the timeline of the doc (which I have watched) you reference in the title of this thread (jesus)......if you can't even get that right then I suggest you go back and revisit your own sources of reference.


I've read the sites you've linked to....and I have countered the points of your argument eloquently. You don't seem to want to acknowledge any theory beyond the ones you are peddling. I will conceed that you are arguing that abduction didn't happen (rather than murder/ manslaughter) but you are not presenting any theory so concrete that abduction can be dismissed.


You have repeatedly criticised the McCanns for every aspect of their efforts to find their child. Can you not understand why a parent would want to continue to believe their child is alive and do what they can to find them? Or is it the case that you think they know their child is dead and so are somehow conning us all to cover that up (which is what you must believe from some of your criticism and cycnicism on their continued belief in abduction).


You started this thread by showing support and credance to the argument presented by the Police Inspector (who incidently was fired) you refer to in your opening post...that's why you are sourcing the links and documentary and account's that you are......


I'm not removing any statements.


I do think you are cold-hearted in your continued lack of sympathy at what the McCanns must have gone through in losing their child (you are more fixated in criticising and/or implicating them). Yes I do have LOTS of experience of children thank you very much. All parents make mistakes from time to time......luckily most of the time no harm is done. Or are you asking us to believe that you were the perfect mother?...somehow I think not.


The theory you present is SPECULATIVE...there is NO hard evidence. A couple of dogs sniffing something that can't be seen or measured by humans...is NOT hard evidence. It needs hard DNA to have any worth and it has been explained to you why the DNA is useless and can prove nothing. I think it's a mystery that will never be solved until a body is found (either living or deceased) and there really is no point in pursuing a case beyond that.

Never have two people on opposing sides of an argument spent so much energy and time, pounding out words to NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER


it doesn't matter what anyone thinks they know. They are only consumers of released information. The debates are circular and done to death. If you care either way you have taken your side.. No one is convincing anyone of anything

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> How do you know that?

>

> It's in the timeline of the doc (which I have

> watched) you reference in the title of this thread

> (jesus)......if you can't even get that right then

> I suggest you go back and revisit your own sources

> of reference.



Could you be a bit clearer please, I don't understand what you mean, the title of my thread is the title of Sr Amaral's book.


>

> I've read the sites you've linked to...



You can't possibly have read the whole of the McCann Files, as I only posted the link tonight!


.and I have

> countered the points of your argument eloquently.



Well we'll have to agree to disagree then, as I don't think you have.



> You don't seem to want to acknowledge any theory

> beyond the ones you are peddling.



You haven't advanced one, have you?


I will conceed

> that you are arguing that abduction didn't happen

> (rather than murder/ manslaughter) but you are not

> presenting any theory so concrete that abduction

> can be dismissed.



If you have as you say read the websites I have linked to, though I can't see how you can possibly have read the whole of the McCann Files in a few hours, which include police interviews and a great deal else, you would be well aware that there is no evidence for an abduction.

>


> You have repeatedly criticised the McCanns for

> every aspect of their efforts to find their child.




What efforts? Not cooperating with the police? Not asking for the case to be reopened when they could have done? Employing private investigators with no track record of finding missing children? Employing private investigators one of whom is now under investigation himself? Employing a team of lawyers which includes those who represented General Pinochet when he was trying to avoid extradition? Employing a "spokesman" to spin their story?



> Can you not understand why a parent would want to

> continue to believe their child is alive and do

> what they can to find them? Or is it the case that

> you think they know their child is dead and so are

> somehow conning us all to cover that up (which is

> what you must believe from some of your criticism

> and cycnicism on their continued belief in

> abduction).

>

> You started this thread by showing support and

> credance to the argument presented by the Police

> Inspector (who incidently was fired) you refer to

> in your opening post...that's why you are sourcing

> the links and documentary and account's that you

> are......



I have linked to the McCann Files, why don't you read them, you clearly haven't. And why don't you look at the reason why Sr Amaral was removed from the investigation?

>

> I'm not removing any statements.


You have stated that I said the parents killed their child. That is not true. If you won't remove your statement I will ask admin to remove it.



>

> I do think you are cold-hearted in your continued

> lack of sympathy at what the McCanns must have

> gone through in losing their child (you are more

> fixated in criticising and/or implicating them).

> Yes I do have LOTS of experience of children thank

> you very much.



Well I hope that you didn't take too frequent "naps" as you put it when looking after small children, or you might have found yourself in the same position as the McCanns.



All parents make mistakes from time

> to time......luckily most of the time no harm is

> done. Or are you asking us to believe that you

> were the perfect mother?...somehow I think not.



There are mistakes, and then there is sheer stupidity. Nobody is a perfect mother. However, my mothering skills are not in question here, I think? Most of us, even if we had been so crap as to leave our children alone on previous nights, on being told that our child had cried for an hour (I think) whilst left alone in the dark in a strange room in a foreign country, would not be so cold-hearted as to then leave them alone again.


I believe that Mrs Fenn's statement regarding Madeleine's crying is available to read in the McCann files, though I stand to be corrected.


>

> The theory you present is SPECULATIVE...there is

> NO hard evidence.



Of course a theory is speculative, that's what a theory is :))



A couple of dogs sniffing

> something that can't be seen or measured by

> humans...is NOT hard evidence. It needs hard DNA

> to have any worth



Yes, that is why I have gone out of my way to stress that the evidence is indicative and not conclusive, but it seems that I am banging my head against a brick wall here.



and it has been explained to you

> why the DNA is useless and can prove nothing.




It hasn't proved anything at the moment, no, because the samples were degraded and insufficient markers were found to demonstrate conclusively that it was Madeleine's. It was not demonstrated that it was NOT Madeleine's, however.



I

> think it's a mystery that will never be solved

> until a body is found (either living or deceased)

> and there really is no point in pursuing a case

> beyond that.



Well there have been cases which have been solved without a body, and sometimes cases are solved many years later. We shall just have to wait and see, shan't we.

Never have two people on opposing sides of an argument spent so much energy and time, pounding out words to NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER


I can think of many threads that out do this one in that respect Sean and neither Sue nor I have anything to do with them lol ;-)


But in respect to this thread I totally agree the debates are circular, done to death and pointless...was kind of my point really (I think)....

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

>

>

> But in respect to this thread I totally agree the

> debates are circular, done to death and

> pointless...was kind of my point really (I

> think)....



xxxxxxx


Why on earth are you continuing the debate then, if that's your opinion?

Why on earth are you continuing the debate then, if that's your opinion?


Out of decency towards the McCanns.


Sr Amaral also made a documentary based on his book......he summises the timeline for events in that documentary.


Anyway...my final words are NO HARD EVIDENCE and not worth talking about until there is......oh and to add...'innocent until proven (beyond reasonable doubt) guilty'.


And as always my sympathy remains with the McCanns for their lost child.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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


>

> And as always my sympathy remains with the McCanns

> for their lost child.


xxxxxxx


As always, my sympathy remains with the child who was so dismally failed by her parents.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

>

> Anyway...my final words are


xxxxxxx


You have to have the last word, don't you?


If you haven't got anything more to contribute to the discussion, why bother? Why say these are your final words and then go on to say more?


ETA: Oh, I see you've now removed your last post.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> The only person responsible for Madeleine's

> disappearance is the person that took her or knows

> what happened to her.

>

> Thankfully it's a rare thing.


xxxxxxxx


Jesus Christ. You can't give up, can you? Yet more "final words"?


You've edited the post of 11.19 that previously just said "Whatever ..." to say something else completely :))


So - let's be clear about this - you don't think that the McCanns were in any way responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine, despite leaving her alone at night, night after night?


Words fail me. Really.

My mate died because he didn't wear a seatbelt. I think you should start a thread about how selfish that was, make sure that if his parents ever google his name they'll find you pontificating about personal responsibility.


I've another friend who was killed by a car as he decided to walk a short cut down a country lane, pretty stupid looking back, but obviously something needs to be done as people sometimes don't think the worst will happen. His brother was going to give him a lift but was talking to someone; I have his telephone number if you want it; just phone him and tell him what a cunt he was to let his brother walk down that dark road and die, I bet you he'll appreciate it, or maybe he was the driver and is trying to cover it up.....oh shit, he actually wanted him dead.


Oh hang on, it never made the press, never mind, that lady di....Arab heir...etc...ad nauseum....

please don't post again unless you have something constructive to add


I'll post whenever I want and whatever I want (within the forum rules), thanks.


The McCanns were not responsible for the disappearnace of their child no. The perpetrator of that crime is responsible for that. And I think the law is in agreement with me on that.


Mockney makes a very good point. How about this?


A woman walks down a poorly lit street at night and is raped. Did she bring it on herself?


The parents of Sarah Payne let her out to play in a corn field near her home out of sight and she was murdered. Did they dismally fail her too?


Hindsight is a beautiful thing.


Parents do not INTENTIONALLY put their children at risk from murderers, abductors and criminals. The McCanns are no different from most parents in this respect.


I really can't understand Sue why you can't seperate leaving their children in what they thought was the safety of the apartment they could see from their dinner table, from the seperate criminal act that is responsible for the unexplained disappearance of their child. In fact...words fail me, really!!!!

Mockney and djkq both miss the point. The examples you give have known endings. There's closure.


The McCann case is far from closed and only one of a number of possible causes are true. Speculation will remain. At the moment only little Madeline is innocent.

With due respect, the point is as follows. Sue is arguing that the McCanns are responsible for their child's disappearance by leaving them in the apartment alone. And they can not be forgiven for that. My view is that leaving the children alone...and the disappearance of a child, are two seperate acts (with different people being repsonsible).


As for....Speculation will remain. At the moment only little Madeline is innocent......all are innocent until evidence shows otherwise. That is a basic fundamental of the law (and a viewpoint that ignores that is a dangerous one). Speculation has a habit of forming public opinion whereby innocent people are presumed guilty by presumption, even though no charges have ever been made, or prosecution taken place (that is why the McCanns have won libel cases). The only place that can decide innocence or guilt is a court.

I won't presume to say what Sue is arguing, she's more than capable of arguing her own corner.


With regard to your Quasi legal point, your wording let's you down. A person is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. The fact is unless Madeline wandered off and met some tragic end with no involvement from anyone else then somebody was involved in her disappearance and is guilty, we just don't know who yet. They are factually guilty even if they haven't been apprehended and brought before a court and convicted. They are not legally guilty though until this happens and the burden of proof that applies in the jurisdiction is satisfied.

We do presume the McCann's innocence don't we?


Clearly there's not enough evidence to resolve it, so anyone asserting their innocence is just as wrong as anyone assserting their guilt.


Sue smells a rat. I don't know why, but I do too. The very first time I saw them on telly I didn't feel comfortable with it. Apparently the British and Portuguese police smell a rat too.


That doesn't mean that they're guilty of anything. From the girl's point of view, this is a crashing tragedy whatever happened.


But the McCanns courted the press, and in doing so they take the rough with the smooth. That mean's that Sue is entitled to comment upon this issue in a way that she wouldn't if it was a private family tragedy in ED.


Mockers, I'm not sure mate. If I died a horrible death at the hands of a crafty murderer and my mates had given up because it was just too difficult, I'd be reliant upon strangers who wanted to avenge a sense of injustice.


Sue, I don't know if you're right or not, but I celebrate your sense of indignation about a case that's unresolved.

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 had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂
    • Log in See all News The fightback against Britain’s corporate vets has begun With costs continuing to spiral, angry pet owners and independent practices have had enough of the big companies dominating the industry     481   Gift this article free   Sally Williams 24 August 2025 12:00pm BST Caroline* and Julian* had been married for 10 years before the arrival of Amy, a miniature dachshund. They had different views about pets. She had grown up surrounded by dogs and really missed having one around the house. He was not a dog person.   They had a happy marriage, a lovely house in south London, good jobs (he worked in finance, she for charities). “But we couldn’t have children and so decided having a dog would make our life more complete,” Caroline explains.   Just before the first lockdown of March 2020, they went to a miniature dachshund breeder in Colchester. A tiny bundle of fur with brown eyes looked up at her husband, says Caroline, and in that instant something clicked. “He just fell in love with her. We knew we had to have her.”   From that moment on, Amy was a member of the family. But she didn’t come cheap. There were routine health checks, a monthly parasite treatment, and also cream for mildly flaky skin around her neck and body. Costs really spiralled when Amy started to hop during a holiday in Cornwall when she was six months old. The local vet said she had a “wobbly knee” and suspected a luxating patella (a kneecap that slips out of place; common in small dogs). Back in London, Caroline’s vet thought it could be hip dysplasia where the hip joint doesn’t develop properly.   Over the next six months, Amy had two X-rays under sedation, blood tests, painkilling medication, and multiple trips to a specialist clinic in Guildford, where she had physiotherapy and hydrotherapy at a cost of £75 a session. Eventually, Amy was seen by a leading small-animal specialist at a referral clinic in Kent. He was not able to identify a clear reason for her hopping. Amy, the expert concluded, “should return to a normal life”.   Caroline was lucky she had insurance. But it still fell short of covering the total bill of £5,000. “I don’t know anything about veterinary care, so I just did whatever the vets told us to do,” says Caroline. “We feel they did too much. Amy had treatment she didn’t really need. But of course we agreed to the treatment because we love her and we wanted her to be better.”   Helplessness, panic, a sinking feeling in the stomach – the worry that comes when a pet is in pain can be awful. But so is the cost of treatment. Nationally, pet owners spend around £4bn a year on veterinary services. And yet there is little consensus on prices.   A low risk, high reward opportunity This is one of the concerns being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK competition watchdog, which, after a national outcry about spiralling vet costs, is next month set to announce the provisional decisions from its market investigation into veterinary services for household pets.   This was set up in response to the takeover of veterinary practices by large corporate groups. “Pet owners may not be getting a good deal or receiving the information they need to make good choices,” it stated at the launch of the market review in September 2023.   The CMA has addressed many unfair, monopolistic practices in its 10-year history, such as funeral companies and airport services. It currently has 63 “live cases/ investigations”, including Ticketmaster (triggered by the dynamic pricing for tickets for the Oasis Live ’25 Tour) and Google, the US technology giant, for its dominance in the online search market.   But the investigation into vets and pets was exceptionally wide-ranging. It included hands-on site visits, teach-ins and round-table discussions with professionals, businesses and the public at large. This is not unusual. The idea is to share knowledge. What has been extraordinary is the unprecedented response.     More than 56,000 people (45,000 pet owners and 11,000 veterinary professionals) replied to the CMA’s online questionnaire. To get 56,000 people to do anything is impressive. To get 56,000 people to respond to a consultation by the CMA is unheard of.   Our devotion to pets is big business. Several factors have come into play. More people are living alone – 8.4 million people, or 30 per cent of all households, in 2023, according to the Office for National Statistics – and fewer people are having babies. Both have combined to deepen our relationship with pets.   There were, it transpires, more Google searches for “is my dog happy” than “is my kid happy” according to a report called Pets are the New Kids from Google in 2022. Of course, it’s not entirely clear if that’s because human children can talk, whereas barks can be confusing. But the sentiment is revealing. Owners are concerned about their dogs’ wellbeing.   What’s more, they are willing to go into debt to cover their pets’ medical bills.   Big money investors noticed the “humanisation” of pets, advances in veterinary care and the scale of ownership – there was a spike during lockdown when 3.2 million households acquired a pet with more than half of UK households now owning an animal – and saw an enticing formula. The field was viewed as low-risk/high-reward, according to a report issued by Capstone Partners in 2022.     The structure of UK veterinary services created an opportunity. In 1999, the law was changed to allow non-vets to own veterinary practices. What’s more, the UK has a relaxed regulatory environment. Veterinary surgeons are regulated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. But veterinary practices are not. The market was wide open.   In 2013, only about 10 per cent of vet practices belonged to large groups. Today, almost 60 per cent are owned by the “Big Six”: IVC Evidensia, CVS, Medivet, Pets at Home, Linnaeus and VetPartners. Of these, IVC, Medivet and VetPartners are owned or backed by private equity firms – investment funds that purchase companies with the aim of delivering profits to their shareholders.   Nestlé (of Cheerios and Shredded Wheat fame) is one of the groups behind the largest owner of veterinary services in the UK, IVC Evidensia, which operates more than 1,000 veterinary practices (out of a total of 5,331 in the UK). It also owns 60-plus emergency out-of-hours hospitals, through Vets Now. Not to mention PawSquad, an online telehealth service, pet funeral and cremation businesses and Pet Drugs Online – an online pharmacy selling pet medication.   EQT, the world’s third-largest private equity firm, controls IVC Evidensia which has an estimated annual revenue of over £221m. Nestlé acquired a stake in IVC in 2021.   Medivet owns more than 400 veterinary centres across the UK, including the Skeldale Veterinary Centre in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, the practice made famous by the semi-biographical books of James Herriot (real name Alf Wight) in the 1970s. It is controlled by the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners.   As big businesses bought up veterinary clinics, prices began to rise – a lot. Vet bills soared by more 60 per cent between 2015 and 2023, higher than the rate of inflation, which was around 35 per cent.     The stakes are high in veterinary medicine. More pets are being put down due to rising vet bills, according to a BBC report. “The sad thing is people are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost,” says Melanie Weatherall, owner and director of Oxford Cat Clinic, a cat-only clinic in Oxford. “We had a cat yesterday that had died on the way to the clinic. The lady was hysterical. She was beating herself up because she felt she should have got the cat to us sooner. There are things we could have done, but it was too late.”   Lack of transparency is another complaint. Six years ago, Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, went to an emergency out-of-hours vet to have Oscar, her beloved bearded collie, put down. He was 16, had a growing list of things wrong and had been hit by a particularly bad bout of pancreatitis. “I could tell he was in terrible pain,” she says. “I wanted the nearest vet who could put him out of his misery in the most gentle way possible.”   She arrived at the vets with her family who had come to say goodbye. But to Cuddy, the clinic felt transactional. “They wouldn’t even look at the dog until they’d swiped a credit card. Then they started upselling me to a crematorium. I wasn’t ready for that. But they wanted to put it on the credit card. I thought, whatever. And they gave me a leaflet that looked like a beautiful family-run place.”   She and Oscar went into a room while her family waited outside. “I was on a cold floor with Oscar. There was no blanket. It was cold in every way.” She cradled him in her arms. “He was blind and I wanted him to hear my voice, smell my scent, know he was safe, even though the place was alien.   “Afterwards I just wanted to go home to cry. I left him on the floor and was given an itemised bill. It was massive. About £1,000 including the cremation. A lot of money to pay for a very miserable experience. I went home and after I stopped crying I googled the crematorium. Turns out it was part of the same corporate chain as the out-of-hours surgery.”   Today, two of the Big Six veterinary groups own pet crematoria. “The ownership of pet crematoria by the large veterinary corporate groups clearly has an impact on our independent businesses,” states the Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria in its submission to the CMA. “The ownership of these crematoriums is often not declared, even on their websites and they appear to be independent.”   “It’s quite hard for normal pet owners to spot how all these things are linked,” says Cuddy. “It’s not like we can see the McDonald’s golden arches everywhere.”   ‘All of us are buyable’ It turns out, furthermore, that there is another consequence of the “corporatisation” of veterinary clinics. Sarah’s cat was 12 when the vet diagnosed suspected cancer, around six years ago. Her local, independent vet in London had just been taken over by Medivet. “The vet said, ‘We’ll do a biopsy’, which involved cutting her open and removing all the tumours and sewing her up again.” The price: £1,000. “I was going to do it,” Sarah says, “and then I thought, I can’t put her through that. In the old days animals got sick and died. The vet wasn’t pushing it, he just assumed this is what you do: I’ve got an elderly cat with suspected cancer, we’ll immediately do a massive operation. I just thought, this is a bit insane.”   Sarah decided against the treatment. Her cat died from cancer “very peacefully at home” six months later. “She just stopped eating and slept all day and then she died, which to me is how it should be.”   Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it should be done, says Bruce Fogle, vet for 55 years and the owner of London Vets, an independent practice in London (and father of Ben Fogle). “A diagnostically aggressive and expensive American approach to vet medicine has become standard in the UK,” he told Instagram followers during a recent discussion on the rise of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in corporately owned clinics.   Bruce Fogle has been approached many times to sell his practice, but has always said no Bruce Fogle has been approached many times to sell his practice, but has always said no Credit: Jeff Gilbert What is best for the animal is not necessarily best for maximising profits. “A corporation doesn’t have a moral core to it,” Fogle tells me. “The aim of any corporation is to increase the financial return.”   For their part, IVC Evidensia, CVS and Medivet point out that corporate veterinary practices benefit from extensive clinical expertise and significant financial investment not available to independent practice. All treatment decisions are based on clinical considerations and in clear consultation with the owner. Furthermore, each has co-operated with the CMA and is fully supportive of all efforts to deliver overall sector improvements including better pricing transparency.   In 2022, Medivet was buying veterinary practices at great speed – 86 that year alone – so by April, it operated 390 clinics across the UK, arranged in a “hub-and-spoke” model, where smaller first-opinion practices encircled larger specialist hospitals that were open all day, every day.   Corporates were “aggressive in their acquisition strategy”, says David Reader, who teaches competition law at Glasgow University. “Rolling up of local independent practices under a single ownership umbrella for the purpose of boosting the value of the collective fleet.” Reader and his frequent collaborator Scott Summers, an expert in business law at UEA Norwich Business School, are in the middle of a project looking at the consequences of private equity and corporate control of the veterinary market. “Pet owners in rural areas, in particular, lose out when the local vet is bought and shut down,” says Summers.   But then, corporate chains were in a powerful position. They could offer to buy practices for “eight, nine, 10 times the profit of the business and it would still be profitable to them because they knew they could improve the efficiency”, says Fogle. “There are great efficiencies in running a number of businesses through a head office. If I own 20 practices and I need 20 X-ray machines, I’m going to get a far better price than if I was just buying one.”   Fogle has been approached many times to sell, but has always said no. “But if I were younger and had to pay for my children’s education, say, or university fees, I’d have been an idiot to turn it down. All of us are buyable.”     As it turned out, in January 2023, eight or so months before the current inquiry, the CMA turned its attention to Medivet’s purchase of 17 independent veterinary clinics bought between September 2021 and September 2022. The CMA was concerned that the new purchases squeezed out any competition in the local market.   But before an in-depth review could get under way, Medivet offered to dispose of the practices that were the subject of the merger investigation. (The same thing happened when the CMA launched a review into specific purchases by CVS, VetPartners and IVC; each offered to sell off the practices.) In October 2023, Medivet sold the 17 practices at a loss of £21.9m.   Will Chandler, 38, qualified as a vet 13 years ago. In his view, the dichotomy of corporate (bad) vs independent (good) is too simplistic. “There are some very well managed corporate clinics,” he says. They can provide better, more sophisticated equipment and more opportunities for advancement. But as lead vet for a Medivet clinic in London, where he worked for six years, it sometimes felt like “all the responsibility and none of the power”.   He describes an environment of unrelenting pressure and a culture of price inflation. He had little influence over hiring staff. “I wasn’t given any CVs, any choice about which candidates to interview.” And with a large corporate structure, “I was always on my phone at weekends, in case someone had a question. And it wasn’t even my business.”   Chandler wanted to go it alone. But he was constrained by a “non-compete” clause which prevented any veterinary business within a very tight radius around a Medivet clinic from opening. “Considering Medivet has 70-odd clinics in London, it’s almost impossible to find an area where you could set up a clinic without triggering a non-compete issue.”   ‘We’re not owned by somebody in an office in a different country’ When he heard that Medivet were selling off clinics at knockdown prices, he jumped at the opportunity. He is now the co-owner of Brockwell Vets in Herne Hill, south London. His business partner is Jenny Kalogera, a veterinary surgeon and original owner of Brockwell Vets, who’d sold it to Medivet in 2021.   “She didn’t like how it was run. Clients went elsewhere, and that was sad for her to see. When it was up for sale, I approached her. She said: ‘Why don’t we go into partnership together?’”   “People love that we are independent,” says Chandler. He is now proud to set his own prices. “We charge £49.50 for a consultation and our dental fee is around £400 – significantly cheaper than the local corporate vet.”   The Oxford Cat Clinic is another practice that was bought back from Medivet as a consequence of the CMA’s merger investigation. Weatherall, 58, had worked as the practice manager at the clinic for nine or so years when it was bought by Medivet in June 2022. She stayed on, along with the vets who’d founded the clinic 16 years before.   Barely six months later, in January 2023, the CMA started to investigate and the clinic’s relationship with Medivet was paused. “We didn’t have a lot of time to be absorbed into the great Medivet machine,” says Weatherall. But it was long enough to get an insight into how things worked.   “In a big corporate environment, you haven’t got the people who make decisions on the ground with you. It’s all centralised which is obviously more cost-effective. Which meant, for example, that we had to wait an interminable amount of time to get permission to buy anything, or if anything breaks – if a door handle comes off, you’ve got to wait for someone to come out and fix it, even though it could be driving the team mad.”   When Medivet put the Oxford Cat Clinic up for sale, Weatherall decided to buy it. “I wanted to keep it out of the hands of the corporate. It’s really good for our clients to know we’re locally run. We’re not owned by somebody who’s in an office, sometimes in a different country, even, who has no idea what’s going on.”   Melanie Weatherall: 'People are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost' Melanie Weatherall: ‘People are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost’ Credit: Harry Lawlor She talks about “pragmatic” care. “I adopted a cat recently. He was a stray. He had a damaged leg. We could have had about £3,000-plus of surgery to repair the leg, but did an amputation in the surgery because that’s a cheaper option and a reasonable option.”   There should be budget vet options, says Paul Mankelow, chief vet at the Blue Cross animal charity. “I can walk into an Aldi and know it’s a different proposition to Waitrose. Similarly, do I want to fly easyJet or Emirates? It’s very clear. But it’s not clear in the veterinary market.”   But running an independent practice is not easy. “I don’t draw any money from the business,” says Weatherall. “I earn no profit whatsoever. I want to change that.”   Sadly, it looks as if the CMA market investigation is not going to be quite as effective as everyone hoped. One of its purposes was to address alleged monopolistic pricing and ownership in the veterinary industry. But there are signs the investigation has pivoted away from the more profound problems of the corporate sector.   This January, Marcus Bokkerink stepped down as chair of the CMA, just three years into his role, as the watchdog moves to better align itself with the Government’s “push for growth”. “The Government’s strategic steer to the CMA is that it shouldn’t be doing anything which gives any outward impression that the UK is not business- or investment-friendly,” says Reader. Doug Gurr, a former head of Amazon UK, is now the interim chair.   “That doesn’t mean no regulation – we all want to see safe, high-quality care. But the system has to be fair and proportionate for both large national groups and small local practices,” says Martin Coleman, chair of the CMA’s inquiry group.   “We’re very supportive of the investigation, we’re glad it’s happening. However, one of our concerns is that the remedies won’t go far enough to put any real constraints on business, but they will go far enough to create extra work and additional paperwork for people working on the front line of veterinary medicine,” says Suzanna Hudson-Cooke, branch chairman of the British Veterinary Union in Unite.   “Initially, I thought it would be great. Now I think I was naive,” says Chandler. “As a small business, we’re looking potentially at an increase in administrative burden and we’re meant to be a clinic that the CMA looks after.”   *Names have been changed     Join the conversation   Show 481 comments The Telegraph values your comments but kindly requests all posts are on topic, constructive and respectful. Please review our commenting policy. Related Topics Telegraph long reads, Dogs, Cats, Animals                         © Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited 2025  
    • @malumbu your original post is a bit confising with multiple, possibly unrelated,  concepts thrown together. Let's address the title of the thread. What are you looking for here, objecting to people flying their national flag? Tying to draw extreme comments out or associating flag flying with the far right ?  The real qquestion possibly is should we feel ashamed to fly the flag? Possibly not, however the reasons for flying it should not be hijacked by political or extremism motivations.  We shouldn't be ashamed of our flag, but a minority seem to be using ir to incite hatred against others.  Therefore the real debate should be around how to remove the extremist views from ability to put a flag up?  I don't have an answer and we won't get one on here but good to have a discussion that may stir a few thoughts. 
    • The mission is clear: lift the Union Jack higher than ever
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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